Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Young Offenders

Mr. Sheerman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the level of success in the rehabilitation of young offenders who receive a custodial sentence. [6148]

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): In 1995, the Prison Service commissioned research to identify measures of behaviour and attitudinal change that could be used to assess the effectiveness of regimes to reduce reconviction. Those measures identified are now being tested at six establishments, and the results will be available early next year.

Mr. Sheerman: Will the Minister examine the results of that research and react to it positively and intelligently? Many hon. Members who are concerned about youth crime were disturbed by his reaction to the Audit Commission's recent study of that issue. That dismissal of a perceptive and intelligent review of the youth justice system and what it means for the average person in this country—particularly the victims of crime—did no one in the Government any credit.

Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman misses the point entirely. He asked about the measures that we are taking in young offender institutions to ensure that young offenders are rehabilitated upon their release into the community. Of course we shall look carefully and intelligently at the excellent pilot projects taking place. All YOIs hold courses on anger management, cognitive skills, addressing offending behaviour and drugs courses. Much work is going on inside prisons for youngsters who have been sentenced by the courts. I was critical of aspects of the Audit Commission's report—particularly the Opposition's welcome for it—because it suggested alternative activities for youngsters which would mean that they would never get to court in the first place and never benefit from the courses that we are now evaluating.

Mr. Marlow: My right hon. Friend will know that there is widespread feeling in this country that corporal punishment would be more effective than a spell inside

for many young people, who often leave prison more expert in the ways of crime than when they entered. What does my right hon. Friend think about that?

Mr. Maclean: I have no proposals to reintroduce corporal punishment to any prisons or corrective establishments—or indeed to the House.

Criminal Activity

Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the change in the levels of criminal activity in recent years. [6149]

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): Recorded crime levels in the 12 months to June 1996 were 10 per cent. lower than three years ago. That is a fall of more than half a million offences—the biggest continuous fall over three years since records were first kept in 1876. Crime is still far too high and there is much more to be done, but I congratulate the police on their considerable recent success.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I thank the Home Secretary for those figures. I was handed a remarkable statistic this morning, which I ask him to confirm. Is it true that only one in 50 recorded crimes leads to a conviction? If so, does it not suggest a total breakdown of law and order in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Howard: If the hon. Gentleman is really interested in such matters, he should congratulate the police in Cumbria, who have a 40 per cent. record of clearing up crime. If he is really interested in improving those statistics, he will join us in reforms—such as changing the right to silence—which were opposed root and branch by the Opposition. Research on the effect of those changes shows that the number of suspects refusing to answer questions has almost halved. Will the hon. Gentleman support us in those changes?

Mr. Brazier: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the latest British crime survey—which is wholly independent of Government figures—showed the first drop in burglaries since figures were compiled? Does he further agree that we can assist the police in converting successful clear-ups into successful convictions by giving them greater powers? Will he confirm that changes to the right to silence and the granting of other powers through the national data bank have greatly enhanced the chances of the police converting crimes into convictions?

Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right. We must ensure that everyone is totally aware of the extent to which the Opposition have voted against, blocked and obstructed those increases in powers. When we changed the right to silence, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), now Leader of the Opposition, described the change as "an injustice" when he opposed it and led his party into the Division Lobby against it time after time. That is the truth of the Opposition's attitude to the effective way of improving the powers of the police to deal with crime.

Mr. Hardy: After supervising the largest increase in crime in recorded history in the United Kingdom, is it not


to be expected that a modest increase will have taken place, even though the vast majority of people in the country will not believe it? Does the Secretary of State not accept that the scale of crime that affects communities like mine is such that more than half the news content of local newspapers week after week is devoted to crime, which to a large extent is caused by the economic and social policies of the Government?

Mr. Howard: The last observation of the hon. Gentleman speaks volumes about the Opposition's attitude to crime. Crime, according to them, is caused not by criminals—those who break the law—but by economic and social conditions, which he attributes to the Government, overlooking the fact that, since the Conservatives have been in office, the average standard of living in this country, the average take-home pay of the average family, has increased by 40 per cent.

Mr. Congdon: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, to reinforce the welcome downward trend in burglary, it is important to show burglars that crime does not pay? Does he agree therefore that it is important to ensure that burglars—particularly repeat burglars—are given custodial sentences, and of a sufficient length? Does he further agree that the public will very much welcome the proposals in his Crime (Sentences) Bill?

Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with the point that my hon. Friend makes. It is, of course, why we propose and provide for in the Crime (Sentences) Bill minimum, mandatory sentences for anyone convicted of a third burglary. The truth of the matter is that far too many career burglars regard a short spell in prison as nothing more than an occupational hazard. We have to change the terms of trade against career burglars. We have to ensure that they know what to expect if they continue their career in crime. That is what the provisions in the Crime (Sentences) Bill will achieve.

Prisons (Drug Abuse)

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new proposals he has to reduce illegal drug use in prison. [6150]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Tom Sackville): We are rapidly increasing the number of drug treatment programmes in prisons. We have introduced mandatory drug testing in every prison and are continuing to develop a battery of other measures to control the supply of drugs into prisons.

Mr. Flynn: Will the Minister, uniquely, listen to the question that I am about to ask and give me an answer based on the question, not on something that he prepared earlier?
Many of the commendable programmes that the Government are using to reduce the use of illegal drugs in prison depend on moving prisoners from the use of illegal drugs to the use of medicinal drugs. The Minister knows the damage caused by medicinal drugs. Ten times as many people are addicted to medicinal drugs than to illegal drugs, and more people die from methadone use than from heroin use. His Department refuses to give any

figures on the use of medicinal drugs in prison. Is it not possible that people are being moved from an illegal non-addictive drug to a legal, addictive medicinal drug?
Will the Minister undertake to inquire into the use of medicinal drugs in prison and report to the House?

Mr. Sackville: There are 59 different drug programmes in prisons. They vary from those that use methadone right through to total abstinence programmes, such as the Rehabilitation of Addicted Prisoners Trust—RAPt—programmes, in Coldingley, Downview, Pentonville and Wandsworth, which use no medicinal drugs following detoxification. We are piloting various drug treatment programmes. The hon. Gentleman may have a preference for those that do not use substitutes, but we have to use all the treatments that exist in getting people off drugs, because there is no single answer to that problem.

Mr. Rathbone: Does my hon. Friend accept that, whatever admirable efforts are made to reduce the use of drugs in prisons, it is equally important to provide support services for prisoners who have given up drugs during their time in prison and have returned to the normal world outside? Will he encourage such steps?

Mr. Sackville: I agree with my hon. Friend. Programmes such as Phoenix house provide halfway houses, treatment and support for people coming out of prison. It is no use people succeeding in a drug-free wing, if they then go back to their communities and take drugs. My hon. Friend's point is well taken.

Mr. George Howarth: Will the Minister acknowledge that a mandatory drug test can detect cannabis after up to 28 days, whereas heroin and cocaine are held in the bloodstream for two to four days? There is a perverse incentive for people to take the latter drugs. Can he confirm that, between March and September, the number of positive tests for opiates increased by 27 per cent., which amounts to 3,500 people? Does he agree that we need more initiatives in the Prison Service, such as the one at Downview, to deal with these serious problems?

Mr. Sackville: I have been told that we should be conducting hair tests rather than urine tests for that reason. The best medical advice is that it is 10 days for cannabis and five days for opiates, but our figures do not show a switch from cannabis to opiates.

Knives (Stop-and-search Powers)

Sir Michael Shersby: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy towards further extending the powers of the police to stop and search for knives without time or geographical restrictions; and if he will make a statement. [6151]

Mr. Howard: A police officer may stop and search anyone if he has reasonable grounds for suspecting that he will find stolen or prohibited articles, such as a knife. We intend to amend the code of practice under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to make it clear that reasonable suspicion includes intelligence that shows that members of a group or gang habitually carry knives. We have also proposed that police powers should be extended,


so that they can stop and search anyone in a particular area if they reasonably believe that people are carrying knives in that area. Those powers would have to be authorised by an officer of at least inspector rank for a maximum period of 48 hours.

Sir Michael Shersby: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that a change to 48 hours and to authorisation by an officer of the rank of inspector in a area where violence is suspected will be welcome, and will make a substantial contribution towards dealing with the difficult problem of knives in the community?

Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am aware that police associations have welcomed the proposals as a significantly useful reinforcement to their powers, which will enable them the more effectively to protect the public.

Mr. Llwyd: That proposal is all very well—I am sure that it will be a useful addition—but what do the Government intend to do about the availability of knives to the public? What is the latest Government thinking on the private Member's Bill to be presented to the House a week on Friday? Will the Home Secretary please tell the House and the general public what is being done about the availability of such knives?

Mr. Howard: We have suggested to the promoter of that private Member's Bill an excellent package to deal with the problem. I hope that he will adopt those proposals and include them in his Bill. If he does so, he will have our full support.

Sir Irvine Patnick: Will my right hon. and learned Friend deal with the problems associated with Stanley knives? It is not only the length and type of knife that matters. Stanley knives can inflict dangerous injuries. How will stop-and-search powers deal with them'? If I were at a dance with a Stanley knife in my pocket, I could be a suspect, but what about people walking in the street?

Mr. Howard: In the circumstances that I identified in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Sir M. Shersby), the police would have extra powers to search. We have substantially increased the penalties for people who carry knives in public without lawful excuse. We recently embarked on an extensive publicity campaign to ensure that everyone knows that those powers exist, and that if they continue to carry knives in public without a lawful excuse, they run the risk of spending a substantial period in prison. We urge people not to carry knives in public without lawful excuse, so as not to run that risk.

Crime Prevention

Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the recommendations of the Audit Commission on the prevention of crime contained in its report "Misspent Youth". [6152]

Mr. Maclean: The Government are determined to do all that they can to prevent children turning to crime. However, they do not accept the Audit Commission's

recommendation that local authorities be given an enhanced role in dealing with juvenile criminals. Punishment must be a matter for the police, the probation service and the courts.

Mr. Gunnell: Does the Minister agree with the Audit Commission's core findings that our youth justice system is inefficient, not working properly and in urgent need of reform? If he is aware of the initiatives that West and South Yorkshire police have taken with regard to young people and crime, will he ensure that such preventive measures are co-ordinated, expanded and resourced, as the Audit Commission recommends? Or are the commission's recommendations too close to Labour party policy for him to accept good advice when he gets it, as would seem to be the case?

Mr. Maclean: I am not surprised that the Labour party grasped at the suggestion that social workers, rather than the courts, be put in charge of justice. I can accept a large number of the Audit Commission's analyses of the problem. What was rather disappointing, naive and unconvincing was its solution, which was to hive people away from the courts and do more cautioning. We are keen on cautioning for first-time offenders because that has about an 80 per cent. success rate. It is naive, however, to believe that a large pool of first-time offenders are wrongly going to court and could be hived off and cautioned instead. That is nonsense and, because the Audit Commission got that wrong, it rather undermines its credibility in the matter.

Dr. Twinn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a serious aspect of youth crime is that many of the crimes committed by repeat offenders take place while they are waiting for their cases to go to court? More of those young people should be remanded in secure places, where they could perhaps start treatment for crack and other addictions, rather than waiting for months and repeating their crimes while in the care of local authorities.

Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is right, but the Opposition voted against our proposals to lock up habitual young offenders when they voted against our proposals for secure training centres. It is not merely that the Opposition vote against measures that would mean people being locked up; they even vote against community punishments. When we increased community sentences to 240 hours, the Opposition voted to cut them to 120. When we introduced curfew orders for the first time, they opposed that. The Opposition are pretending that they are worried about youth crime, but they have voted and argued against all that we have been trying to do to crack down on young offenders.

Mr. Straw: Why does the Minister not accept that, of all his and the Government's many failures on law and order, nowhere have they failed more than on youth crime? Is it not astonishing that, in the past 10 years, while the number of crimes committed by youngsters has shot up, the number dealt with by the police and courts has dropped alarmingly, delays have worsened, costs increased and the number of secure accommodation places decreased? Instead of all this bluster, why does the Minister not accept that the Audit Commission report confirms the urgent need for Labour's pledge to halve the


time that it takes to bring persistent young offenders to court—the Minister laughs at that pledge and the country can see him laughing, complicit in the delays, which have got worse in the past 10 years—and for our proposals to ensure that prompt and effective action is taken to punish, divert and deter young offenders? Or is the Minister going to continue to do nothing, so that too many youngsters stay out of control, blighting their lives and causing misery for thousands of members of the public?

Mr. Maclean: That was a good example of bluster if I ever heard one in this House. The reason why I was laughing and am still chuckling is that we have heard that that much-touted Labour pledge will halve the time that it takes to get kids to court, but the Opposition have not spelt out a single detail of how they will do it. They have not spelt out how they will make the defence move more quickly or how they will expedite the files. They have not spelt out a single detail on those matters.
Through our pre-trial issues steering group, we have taken practical action to expedite files and to get people, including juveniles, to trial faster. The Magistrates Association has recently announced that it will bring to trial early youngsters who are up on multiple charges, and it will bring them to trial for the first offence.
If the hon. Gentleman has been so very worried about juvenile crime, I can conclude only that he has been away from the House for far too long. He voted against all the measures that we have taken to deal with juvenile crime. He voted against community sentences and curfew orders, and he even voted against making parents attend court in all circumstances. Labour even voted to cut the time required to be spent at an attendance centre, from 36 to 24 hours. So much for being concerned about juvenile criminals.

Crime (Guns)

Mr. Merchant: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many criminals who took a gun to a crime have been given a life sentence since 1989. [6153]

Mr. Howard: Some 123 persons were given a life sentence for homicide offences initially recorded in the years 1989–95, in which the method of killing was shooting. Information for other offences is not available separately.

Mr. Merchant: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Does he agree that taking a gun to a crime is a very serious matter, and that, therefore, every effort must be made to crack down on that type of crime? Does he agree that the tough measures included in his Crime (Sentences) Bill will help stamp out second offences?

Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and I am grateful for his support. Automatic life sentences for those who commit a second serious violent offence will bring home to people the importance of not committing such offences. More importantly, they will protect the public by ensuring that no one who does commit such an offence is released unless and until an assessment has been made of whether they still pose a risk to the public. If they do not pose a risk, they will be released, but if

they still pose a risk, they will not be released—even if that means that they will spend the rest of their lives in prison.

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many criminals who have used a gun to threaten with intent have received a life sentence in each of the past six years. [6154]

Mr. Howard: It is an offence under the firearms Acts, subject to a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, to be in possession of a firearm with intent to commit an indictable offence. In the six years from 1990–95, 717 people were convicted of that offence in England and Wales, and 420 of them were imprisoned, with an average sentence of 36 months. None was sentenced to life imprisonment.

Mr. Marshall: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept my thanks for that answer, which explains the need for his Crime (Sentences) Bill? His Bill will ensure that persistent and dangerous offenders are properly punished, and that the law-abiding majority are properly protected. Should not his Bill be welcomed by all those who claim to be tough on crime?

Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I entirely agree with him. We still await the details of the Labour party's response to those proposals in the crime Bill, although we know that it will oppose many aspects of my proposals. We shall leave no stone unturned as we remind the public of the proposals that we intend to put in place, which are being constantly blocked by the Labour party.

European Court of Human Rights

Sir Ivan Lawrence: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has for limiting the role of the European Court of Human Rights in overruling decisions of the British courts and the Westminster Parliament. [6155]

Mr. Howard: The Government have made proposals to improve the working of the European Court of Human Rights and the European Commission of Human Rights. Those proposals are designed to improve court procedures to provide a high standard among judges appointed to the court, and to ensure that proper weight is given—through the doctrine of the margin of appreciation—to the national character, traditions, religious beliefs and moral values of the countries that are signatories to the convention.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the British people are getting fed up with being told what to do by that interfering foreign court, which does not appear to know or care about British culture and tradition? Will he reconsider the Government's refusal to incorporate the European convention on human rights into British law, and cheer the British people by extending the power of British courts over British business, rather than extending that of the European Court?

Mr. Howard: My hon. and learned Friend will not be surprised to hear that I have considerable sympathy with


the first part of his question. I believe that the best way forward is to reform the court in the way in which we are seeking to do, rather than incorporate the convention into our domestic law, which would require our courts to make political judgments about a wide range of matters that are at present determined by our elected and democratically accountable Parliament. Such judgments are the proper function of Parliament, not the courts.

Mr. Dalyell: The Home Secretary said just now that he had sympathy with the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), who described the European Court of Human Rights as an "interfering foreign court". Is that really the Government's view?

Mr. Howard: If the hon. Gentleman does not appreciate the immense frustration that that court's recent decisions have given rise to up and down the country, he is severely misjudging the mood of the people.

Mr. Garnier: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the European Court of Human Rights has nothing whatever to do with the European Union or the European Court of Justice? Will he also confirm that if we were—unwisely—to incorporate the convention on human rights into British law, it would greatly inhibit the freedom of the press? Does he not think that if we were to introduce any laws on, for example, the invasion of privacy, they should be dealt with by the House and not introduced by some other method?

Mr. Howard: As I said in answer to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), I certainly agree that such matters should be decided in this democratically accountable House and the other place, and not in the European Court of Human Rights. I can certainly confirm that the answer to the first question asked by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) is that, indeed, the European Court of Human Rights has nothing to do with the European Union.

Mr. Beith: If the Home Secretary thinks that the European Court of Human Rights is an interfering foreign court, why are British judges still sent to take part in it? Does he realise that, if the court is made less effective, he will be denying human rights not only to British citizens but to citizens of all signatory countries in the Council of Europe, who are currently protected by it? Does he recognise that incorporation would assist in ensuring that the judgments based on the European convention fitted this country's traditions and character?

Mr. Howard: I do not think that the reforms advocated by the Government would in any way make the court less effective. If anything, they might make it more effective—but within proper parameters. A number of recent decisions of that court—not least the one it reached on the killing in Gibraltar—have caused widespread offence in this country. If the right hon. Gentleman and his party do not recognise that fact, they too are guilty of a severe misjudgment of the mood of the people.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Should we not bear it in mind that the European convention on human rights was set up at a time when individuals in eastern Europe were being

shipped off to the gulags under their communist Governments? Should we not also bear it in mind that the convention was set up due to fears that countries such as France and Italy would fall under communist rule and that therefore a means of safeguarding individuals was necessary? Given the collapse of communism and that threat to human rights, is not the convention and its court superfluous and should it not be scrapped?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is right about the background of circumstances against which the convention and the court were set up. Those who set the court up would be pretty astonished at some of the judgments that it has made in recent years. I do not, however, entirely follow my hon. Friend along the road to the conclusion that he has identified because I think that it is possible for us to reform the court. We have put on the table specific proposals to achieve that objective, which I very much hope will be accepted.

Mr. Henderson: I welcome the conversion of the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) to the policy view that the European convention on human rights should be incorporated into British law. He, like the Labour party, understands that the main problem is not that European courts are overruling British courts but that British citizens have inadequate access to any court to establish human rights.
It takes too long to go to Europe and costs too much. On this Thursday—

Madam Speaker: Order. I have not yet heard a question from the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Henderson: Here comes a question.

Madam Speaker: Now.

Mr. Henderson: Now. In the week before United Nations Human Rights Day next Tuesday, should not patriotic parties support Labour's policy that human rights should come home?

Mr. Howard: That would lead to the disadvantages that I identified in answer to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton, who, long before the Labour party, came to the opinion that the convention should be incorporated. The assertions in the lengthy introduction to the hon. Gentleman's question about the access of citizens of this country to our courts were preposterous. Our courts afford full protection for human rights.

Prisoners (Sentences)

Mr. Sumberg: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to ensure that convicted prisoners serve their full sentence. [6156]

Mr. Maclean: I believe that there should be greater honesty in sentencing. Accordingly, the Crime (Sentences) Bill contains provisions that will ensure that the sentence actually served matches more closely the sentence imposed by the court.

Mr. Sumberg: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on those excellent proposals, which will ensure


that those who commit crimes serve a full sentence? Do not those proposals prove that the Government have responded to widespread public concern on the issue, in contrast to Labour Members, who talk tough in soundbites, but for ever abstain on or vote against measures that will put criminals behind bars?

Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is right. The core elements of the Bill will bring in mandatory minimum sentences for persistent burglars and for those who deal in the worst drugs, which are killing and destroying our children, and life sentences for hardened killers and rapists. The Labour party decided to abstain. It is scared to vote for the proposals, but it dare not vote against them. Labour Members sit there, not having an opinion.

Mr. Winnick: Is it not important that prisoners should be convicted in the first place? Is the Minister aware that my constituent, Raghbir Singh, was held in prison for 20 months without a charge being made against him? He was released on Monday afternoon, after I had repeatedly raised the matter, only because of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights—an institution that Tory Members have today criticised. If it were not for that decision last Friday, my constituent would, quite possibly, have remained in prison for months or years to come without charge.

Mr. Maclean: I do not accept that the detention of those regarded as a threat to our national security should be determined by a foreign court.

Mr. John Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, to have honesty in sentencing, we must reform the present arrangements on how time served on remand is taken into account when calculating a prisoner's sentence? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the recent decision on concurrent sentences defies logic? Will he confirm that the Crime (Sentences) Bill will be used to put that right?

Mr. Maclean: It is a source of concern that a course of action that has been confirmed by four court judgments since 1967 should be overturned by another court judgment. However, I confirm that the relevant measures in the Crime (Sentences) Bill have been passed in Committee, so we shall now have suitable powers to make the amending regulations.

Crimes (Convictions)

Mr. Pope: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate his Department has made of the percentage of crimes which ended in a conviction in (a) 1993 and (b) 1995. [6157]

Mr. Maclean: About 6 per cent., but the percentage for more serious offences was very much higher. Many of those convicted will have been responsible for other crimes.

Mr. Pope: According to the British crime survey, the number of offences went up by 400,000 and the number

of convictions went down by 13,000. Does it not take a special kind of incompetence to reduce convictions at a time of soaring crime?

Mr. Maclean: No, but it takes a certain kind of hypocrisy for a party to complain about those things and then vote against all the measures that we have put forward to deal with them.

Sir Patrick Cormack: How many of the crimes involved the use of legally owned handguns?

Mr. Maclean: Offhand, I cannot give my hon. Friend that figure, but I shall happily do so and, if necessary, lay the answer before the House. I speculate that the figure is very small indeed.

Mr. Michael: Can we now have some honesty on crime figures from the Minister? Last month, the Home Secretary said that 6 per cent. of crimes ended up in punishment by a court. That would be bad enough; but, since then, the Government have had to admit to the House that only 2 per cent. of crimes ended in a conviction in 1993, and suddenly it is too expensive to work out the figures for last year. Will the Minister now accept the truth? The Government's British crime survey shows that crime is up, although fewer crimes are reported. The right hon. Gentleman's parliamentary replies show that convictions are down. No longer does one in 50 crimes end in punishment; now—as confirmed to me by the House of Commons Library analysis today—only one in 54 crimes ends in punishment by a court. Will the Minister face up to his responsibility for that harsh reality?

Mr. Maclean: More bluster to hide the voting record. The conviction rate depends on two crucial things. The first is the rules of law under which the courts have to operate; every time we have tried to change the balance more in favour of the victim, such as by removing the right to silence, the Opposition vote against it.
The conviction rate also depends on the police catching criminals. When the Labour party left office, we were 8,500 officers under strength. We have had to recruit those 8,500 officers and 7,000 more. I can tell the House that we now have 2,000 more constables than we did at the time of the general election. We are recruiting more police officers, because that is one of the best ways to improve our conviction rate in future.

Mr. Day: Will my right hon. Friend refuse to listen to the siren voices of Opposition Members and the judiciary who, between them, have let down the people of this country by ensuring that criminals who commit major crimes that threaten people's everyday lives do not spend sufficient time in prison and are not, in the public's eyes, punished? Although rehabilitation is important, the public know that rapists cannot rape, muggers cannot mug and robbers cannot rob when they are in gaol.

Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is right. Siren voices can be rather attractive, but the Opposition's voices are not siren but rather shifty. They are shifty, because they are saying one thing now but do another when they go through the Lobbies. The Labour party voted against the Criminal Justice Act 1991, the Criminal Justice Act 1988,


reforming the right of silence, imposing longer community sentences and imposing curfew orders. With that criminal record to its name, the Labour party has no credibility today in claiming that it is tough on crime or tough on the causes of crime.

Football Matches (Policing)

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will assess the adequacy of the policing of football matches. [6158]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Timothy Kirkhope): Policing of football matches is an operational matter for chief officers, but I am satisfied that it is done professionally and efficiently—the whole world saw the evidence of that during Euro 96.

Mr. Banks: I hope that, this evening, the Minister will have a chance to watch the drama on Carlton Television about the Hillsborough disaster, because many football supporters are angry about what they see as the failure of policing at Hillsborough and the lies and cover-ups that followed. The Minister should be prepared to talk with the football clubs and the police to allow the clubs to have more of an input into the policing decisions in grounds. The police rely far too often on historical background for policing levels rather than on new technology, the new seating and the new arrangements in clubs. Will not the Minister allow the clubs to have greater involvement, because sometimes policing charges for football clubs are more than the gate receipts?

Mr. Kirkhope: It is for the football clubs to discuss with the chief officers in their areas the nature and extent of policing both inside and outside the grounds. I am satisfied that there have been considerable developments since the Hillsborough disaster in 1989. Great progress has been made, and one has only to go to an excellent match—as I did on Sunday, when an excellent team beat the hon. Member's team 2-0—to see that the standards in grounds are now enormously high.

Electronic Tagging

Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the impact of electronic tagging. [6159]

Mr. Sackville: More than 230 offenders have now been sentenced and tagged under curfew orders. The trials show that the curfews are increasingly valued by the courts as a flexible and effective punishment.

Mr. Evans: I thank the Minister for his reply. As the shambles opposite have got the number 22 on their minds, will my hon. Friend tell me whether on no fewer than 22 occasions they voted against every piece of legislation that we tried to introduce to put criminals inside, where they belong? Can he tell me whether tagging works in Barbados or on safari, because that is where that lot send the pint-sized Rambos to get their corrective training? Does tagging work in Barbados? That is what I want to know.

Mr. Sackville: My hon. Friend can be assured that electronic tagging is a tough punishment, and goes down

extremely badly with criminals, which is why the courts are imposing it for the upper end of the offences for which it is intended. I suspect that we shall hear many voices among the Opposition moaning that it is bad luck on the criminal.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

EU Unemployment

Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister if he will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the level of unemployment in the EU. [6178]

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): Yes, I expect to do so as part of the discussion on the intergovernmental conference.

Sir Teddy Taylor: As unemployment in the rest of the European Union has risen by 5 million in five years, which means 3,000 individual human tragedies every day, and as Britain alone has falling unemployment, partly because of our exclusion from the exchange rate mechanism, does the Prime Minister appreciate why a growing percentage of people in Britain consider the European Union a rather inadequate organisation? In the light of those alarming figures, is he willing to consider the possibility of letting the people of Britain have a say in their future? Can he at least guarantee that, in any referendum on the European currency, the decision will be taken before sterling is linked in any way to the euro?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend says, unemployment is falling consistently across the United Kingdom, and is either rising or static in the rest of the European Union.
On my Friend's main point, we have made a firm commitment to hold a referendum if the next Conservative Government recommend that Britain should join a single European currency in the next Parliament. I confirm to my hon. Friend that, if such a referendum were held, it would of course be held before sterling was linked in any way with any putative European currency. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor and I have often made clear, we do not intend to rejoin the so-called ERM mark 2, and would not wish to institute any policy of shadowing the euro.

Engagements

Mr. Beith: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 December. [6179]

The Prime Minister: This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Beith: Is the Prime Minister seriously pressing ahead with Budget measures that would deprive between 7,000 and 10,000 ex-service people of their entitlement to war pensions, and cost thousands more their entitlement to benefit paid for deafness resulting from war service? It is only a few weeks since we saw disabled war pensioners


determined to march, limp or be pushed in wheelchairs past the Cenotaph. Surely the Prime Minister has not forgotten them now.

The Prime Minister: Of course not. I fear that the right hon. Gentleman has been misled by reports in The Guardian and by the conflation of two separate and distinct matters. The first involves proposals to simplify about 19 complex measures. No pensioner will lose money as a result of that. The second concerns new independent medical advice on pensions paid for loss of hearing. The purpose of that independent advice is to determine what disabilities have been caused, so that people can be compensated accordingly. Those changes were—[Interruption.] That independent medical advice is the normal way of dealing with these matters. It has invariably been accepted. It usually puts up entitlements—that has always been the case in the past. I know of no circumstance when it has not been accepted. It was discussed this morning with the Central Advisory Committee on War Pensions, which will now consider the details.

Sir Rhodes Boyson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is great rejoicing today in the knowledge that A-level standards will be retained and strengthened? Does he agree that that is one of many reforms introduced by the Government for the benefit of British education?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend speaks for many people, including many millions of parents. Standards are at the heart of the Government's policies on education and will remain so. Our national qualifications must remain at the highest standard, and A-levels are central to that.

Mr. Blair: May I return the Prime Minister to the subject of war pensions? Future pensioners will lose as a result of the changes. Those changes to war pensions were described in the Government press release on Budget day as proposals
to simplify policy and procedures",
whereas they actually mean £50 million-worth of cuts. Does the Prime Minister accept that that was inaccurate and misleading, and will he apologise to the British people for that deception?

The Prime Minister: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman is just plain wrong. If the House will permit me to repeat what I said to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), I shall take the Labour leader through it gently, so that he understands. Two issues have been run together in a simplistic and misleading way by The Guardian. If the right hon. Gentleman relies on The Guardian for his information, that explains why he is so often inaccurate in his questions.
The first issue involves proposals to simplify complex measures. No pensioner will lose money as a result of that. The second is the way in which we have always dealt with independent medical advice concerning pensions. [Interruption.] Hon. Members shout. After some months, we have just accepted independent advice on emphysema, having been pressed to do so by the Opposition. We did so willingly. That is what we always do with independent

medical advice and what we have done on this occasion. The purpose of the independent advice that we have always sought is to determine what disablements have been caused, so that people can be compensated accordingly. That is happening on this occasion—nothing different, no change. We are following the normal practice for dealing with these matters.

Mr. Blair: Let me deal with each part in turn, so that the Prime Minister can answer each part. The first involves hearing disability. The Prime Minister says that the changes were made on independent medical advice. If the reason for the changes was independent medical advice, why were all his Social Security Ministers opposed to them, which they were, and why did not the Budget press release mention the fact that the changes reduced expenditure by £35 million?
The second part involves the other changes that the Prime Minister mentioned. He says that they are merely a simplification. Are they on the basis of medical advice? Is that why widows' rent allowances are to be abolished for new cases? The Prime Minister shakes his head. Is that happening or not? Not issuing reminders to return claim forms—is that happening or not? Ceasing to issue copies of decisions to third parties—is that happening or not? Is the instruction "Do not direct appellant to Royal British Legion as their representative" correct or not? Instead of patronising comments about how we do not understand, will the Prime Minister deal, first, with the matter of medical advice and his Social Security Ministers and, secondly, with each of the points that I have made?

The Prime Minister: As I told the right hon. Gentleman a moment ago, he has completely misunderstood what has happened. He has not seen the full range of correspondence, and as usual—despite his piety about a leak a week or so ago—he relies on leaked correspondence. If he had seen the correspondence, he would not have misunderstood the matter in the way he just has.
I repeat: the right hon. Gentleman has got it wrong, and I hope that he will not pursue it. We are trying to simply the procedures, as that is the right thing to do in the interests of the taxpayer, as well as of the applicants and the recipients of benefits. If the right hon. Gentleman does not want to simplify procedures across government, no wonder he envisages expenditure rising under a Labour Government.

Mr. Blair: If the right hon. Gentleman is unable to answer the specific points that were put to him, he will stand condemned out of his own mouth. I must ask him why—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question"]. This is a question—"why" is normally the start of a question. Why, if it is all just administrative procedures, does one Minister talk about a storm that is about to break about the Government's head?

The Prime Minister: indicated dissent.

Mr. Blair: The Prime Minister shakes his head. A Minister said that. Why do the Government talk of "sweeteners"? They talk of these things because they know that they have been caught doing something shabby and mean-minded. If he cannot be trusted with British war pensioners, why should he be trusted at all?

The Prime Minister: As is typical, the right hon. Gentleman has quoted out of context and wrongly, and he has drawn the wrong conclusion from what he has said. One day, he might find out what he is talking about before he starts to talk about it.

Mr. Charles Wardle: My right hon. Friend knows that, when he vetoes the Commission's new proposals on borders—as Conservative Members know he will—the European Parliament has said that it will renew its action in the European Court. My right hon. Friend's own advisers say that the court will rule our borders unlawful, as the treaty now stands. Will he therefore explain to the House the contradiction, in that he says that our borders are not negotiable but his Ministers say that we will not break European law?

The Prime Minister: We have made it clear to our European partners on innumerable occasions that we will not accept any form of treaty change that alters the sanctity of British borders. Treaty change will need to be by unanimity, and we will not give our consent to it. There should be no doubt among any of our European partners that we are not prepared to accept any change whatsoever to the present system of safeguarding Britain's borders and, hence, our immigration controls.

Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 December. [6180]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. McAvoy: Is the Prime Minister aware that his absent Chancellor of the Exchequer has been briefing journalists on the Prime Minister's failed attempt to change Government policy on Europe? Does he agree with the Chancellor, who has described the Prime Minister's failed attempt as a boomerang wrapped in high explosive which has blown up in the Prime Minister's face?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman may know that I have a statement in my hand that denies the report to which he refers.

Mr. Dover: Following the excellent Budget speech by the Chancellor last week, my right hon. Friend will have heard stupid statements from the Labour party about a lower basic rate of tax than 20p and lifting the ceiling for the 40 per cent. tax rate. Will not these unfounded pledges or promises—call them what you will—only give rise to higher taxation—

Madam Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Prime Minister answers questions, not about the

Opposition but on behalf of the Government. Perhaps the Prime Minister might turn the question around and attempt to answer it.

The Prime Minister: It is certainly—[Interruption.] It is nice to welcome back the deputy leader of the Labour party. I thought that he was in Scotland answering focus groups.
It is certainly the case that, in order to contain public expenditure and hold down taxation, many extremely difficult decisions have to be taken. We have taken those decisions and I acknowledge the difficulty of doing so.

Mr. Faulds: Out of order.

Madam Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I think that the whole country understands the unlikelihood of any alternative Government taking such decisions.

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 December. [6181]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Skinner: Can the Prime Minister tell us where he has hidden those economic jewels that he referred to in a speech last week? I went to the Treasury chest to find them and I found a big IOU that said that the country owed a £380 billion national debt which had doubled since the Prime Minister took office. There was another IOU showing a £19.5 billion public sector borrowing requirement shortfall.
Then I met a bloke on the street with his head down. I said, "Are you looking for these economic jewels too?" He said, "No, I'm looking for work." In my opinion, the Government sold off the economic jewels along with all the silver that they sold off the other years.

The Prime Minister: I hope that, when the hon. Gentleman was in the Treasury basement the other day, he did not leave a match behind him.
As for our economic jewels, I invite the hon. Gentleman to find any other country with unemployment falling like ours, tax rates and growth at our level, growing exports. a narrowing trade gap and economic prospects as good as ours. He cannot do it, because there is not one. The chap he found looking for work would be joined by many others looking for work if the policies that the hon. Gentleman advocates were ever put into effect.

Business of the House

Mrs. Ann Taylor: May I ask the Leader of the House for details of future business?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 9 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Bill.
TUESDAY 10 DECEMBER—Estimates Day [1st allotted day—1st Part]. There will be a debate on access to Government information. Details will be given in the Official Report.
Consideration of Lords amendments to the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill.
At 10 pm the House will be asked to agree the winter supplementary estimates and the vote on account.
Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund Bill.
WEDNESDAY 11 DECEMBER—The morning debate will be slightly different from the norm. Until 12.30 pm, debate on the first report from the Social Security Committee on unfunded pension liabilities in the European Union followed by a debate on the fourth report from the Environment Committee on World Trade and the Environment. Followed by debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
In the afternoon, a debate on the European Union on a motion for the Adjournment of the House, which will be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 12 December. Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
FRIDAY 13 DECEMBER—Private Members' Bills.
For the following week, I am at present in a position to give information only for the first day.
MONDAY 16 DECEMBER—Progress on the Protection from Harassment Bill.
The House will also wish to know that on Wednesday 11 December there will be a debate on Community railway policy in European Standing Committee A, and a debate on development of the social dialogue in European Standing Committee B.
The House will also wish to know that it will be proposed that on Tuesday 17 December there will a debate on the information society in European Standing Committee B.
Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.

[Wednesday 11 and Thursday 12 December:

Debate on the European Union—Relevant European Community Documents:

(1)The White Paper on Developments in the European Union, January to June 1996 (Cm 3469).
(2)Presidency General Outline for draft revision of Treaties.
(3)The Commission's Work Programme for 1997: New Legislative Proposals (SEC(96)1819).
(4)The Commission's Work Programme for 1997: Political Priorities (COM(96)507).

(5)European Community Document No. 10867/96 on the introduction of the euro.
(6)European Community Document No. 10893/96 on reinforced convergence procedures and a new exchange rate mechanism.
(7)European Community Document No. 10892/96 on a stability pact for ensuring budgetary discipline in stage 3 of EMU.
(8)Second and Third Reports from the Select Committee on European Legislation, HC 36-ii and 36-iii (1996–97).
(9)Sixth Report from the Select Committee on European Legislation, European Documents on Economic and Monetary Union: The Scrutiny Process, HC 36-vi (1996–97).
(10)Eighth Report from the Treasury Committee, The Prognosis for Stage 3 of Economic and Monetary Union, HC 283, Volumes I and II (1995–96).
(11)Minutes of Evidence taken by the Select Committee on European Legislation on 3 December (HC 136-i).
(12) Minutes of Evidence taken by the Foreign Affairs Committee on 5 December.

The Minutes of Evidence to be taken by the Foreign Affairs Committee on 9 December may also be relevant.

Tuesday 10 December:

Estimates Day [1st Allotted Day—1st Part]. Vote on Account, Class XVIII, Vote 1 Cabinet Office: Office of Public Service in so far as it relates to Access to Government Information. Relevant Reports: The Second Report from the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, Session 1995–96, (HC 84), Open Government, and the Government's Reply published in the Committee's First Special Report, Session 1996–97, (HC 75).

Wednesday 11 December:

European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Community Documents: (a) 10003/95, Community Railway Policy; (b) 9654/96, The Community's Railways. Relevant European Legislation Committee Reports: (a) HC 51-i (1995–96); (b) HC 51-xxix (1995–96).

European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community Document: 10305/96, Development of the Social Dialogue. Relevant European Legislation Committee Report: HC 36-ii (1996–97).

Tuesday 17 December:

European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community Document: 9795/96, The Information Society: Priorities and Implications. Relevant European Legislation Committee Report: HC 36-i (1996–97).]

Mrs. Taylor: I thank the Leader of the House. The whole House will welcome the fact that the Government have responded to its demands for a full-day debate on economic and monetary union, which is to take place on Wednesday, in addition to the more general Euro-debate on Thursday. We have no objection to that debate being on the Adjournment. However, will the Leader of the House tell us what is to happen to the documents relevant to that debate which have still not been voted on? Surely it would be appropriate to vote on them at the conclusion of the debate on Wednesday evening.
We welcome progress on the Protection from Harassment Bill, which is to have all its stages as quickly as possible on the Floor of the House starting on Monday 16 December, and the fact that the Government have taken up our offer of co-operation. As the Bill goes further than the original proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson), which the Government blocked earlier this year, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the additional provisions in the Bill are the subject of proper consultation so that the legislation will be workable? To that end, will the Leader of the House reflect that we might need more than one day to consider the Bill properly? That should not materially affect its progress.
Can the Leader of the House say whether, as has become usual practice, we will have the annual fisheries debate in the next few sitting weeks because that involves many important issues that concern both Government and Opposition Members?
Finally, there is today's appalling news about aspects of the Budget statement that were not made clear to the House during the Chancellor's Budget speech or when the Secretary of State for Social Security opened his debate last Thursday: the changes to the benefits of disabled ex-service men and war widows. The Prime Minister made the situation worse a few moments ago by not being able to answer some very basic questions, and today the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) has said of one Minister:
Someone who has so little regard for our war heroes should not be in the Government".
Surely shabby and misleading ministerial actions that provoke such comments warrant a debate in the House.

Mr. Newton: On the debate before the Dublin European Council, I am grateful to the hon. Lady for acquiescing in the idea of a debate on the Adjournment. She asked about the completion of scrutiny. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor still has detailed issues to raise with other Finance Ministers, including points made by hon. Members in the House, we do not intend to seek to complete scrutiny at present. Legislation is not likely to be finally adopted until after the Amsterdam summit next June. Detailed negotiations on the legal text of the stability pact have not even started. Our intention is to return to the House with the revised text next year once it is clearer how the eventual proposals will look. If the proposals are acceptable to the United Kingdom—which, in due course, we believe that they should be—we will then seek scrutiny clearance. In the meantime, at Dublin and on other appropriate occasions, where necessary, we will table a parliamentary reserve. I repeat the assurances that have been given that the Government will not participate in political agreements until scrutiny is cleared.
I note what the hon. Lady said on the Protection from Harassment Bill. One of the reasons why I have not been able to give details for the days following Monday is that discussions are going on through the usual channels. I certainly acknowledge that the point she has raised deserves consideration, and I hope that we will be able to reach an agreement on it.
I can confirm that we intend to have the fisheries debate before the recess.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made the position on war pensions perfectly clear. The changes that were the principal focus of The Guardian story today rest

on medical advice, precisely in the same way as the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council's proposals, which we have been repeatedly pressed to accept for many months, rest on medical advice. I do not think that it can be reasonable for the Opposition to argue that medical advice should be ignored in some cases and accepted in others.

Mr. Bob Dunn: May we have an urgent debate soon in Government time on constitutional developments, given that many of us on the Conservative Benches wish to demonstrate our opposition to proportional representation, the abolition of the House of Lords, the break-up of the United Kingdom and the imposition of regional government on England? Those policies, if enacted, would be a constitutional nightmare for the people of this country.

Mr. Newton: I can readily agree with my hon. Friend that such a debate certainly has much merit, but I am afraid that I cannot undertake to provide time for it before Christmas, unless my hon. Friend wishes to be here at Christmas.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Leader of the House give an assurance that he has not confused the widespread support in the House for the passage into law of the Protection from Harassment Bill with the idea that all stages should be taken without any proper opportunity being provided between those stages for people to consider what has been agreed at each stage? There is a danger that, as has happened with previous legislation, that Bill will appear speedily on the statute book and will be a muddle.
Given the exchanges at Prime Minister's Question Time, may we have a debate before Thursday next week, either during the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill or the debate on the estimates, on a wide range of pensioner issues, although they should specifically include war pensioners, who are the subject of the concern expressed in today's press reports? That debate could also refer to the fact that many councils, such as Barnsley, do not disregard war pensions from council tax and housing benefit. The Government and the Opposition are making sure that war pensioners are treated differently up and down the country.

Mr. Newton: I am afraid that I cannot undertake to provide time for a debate of the kind that the hon. Gentleman has sought. There is provision for a debate on one aspect of pensions—unfunded pension liabilities—although I accept that that is a fairly narrow issue. I should remind the hon. Gentleman that we recently had a full day allocated to social security during the debate on the Budget.
As for Barnsley, a degree of local discretion in such matters has been exercised for a long time, and no doubt the hon. Gentleman's remarks will have been noted in Barnsley.

Mr. William Cash: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that the announcement he has just made about the debate that we were expecting and hoping for on the regulations, the stability pact and so forth shows that the Government have now accepted that the opinions of the House as a whole, which come from all parts of


the political spectrum, have prevailed? The Government have now accepted the fact that they must always take note of what the Select Committee says with regard to debates being taken on the Floor of the House. Will he absolutely guarantee that what happened two weeks ago will never happen again?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend, for reasons that I understand, rather stretches his interpretation of what I have said. I have not changed the proposals for the debate. We made it clear long ago that we would provide time for a debate before the Dublin Council. We have now extended that debate to two days, particularly to allow greater time for discussion of EMU. On the other points, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor made it clear in two sets of exchanges that we have had during the past fortnight that he understood some of the points and concerns that were raised with him. Those are the ones that he has been pressing and is continuing to discuss with our European partners.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I intervene as honorary parliamentary adviser to the Royal British Legion. Is it not totally unpardonable for the Secretary of State for Social Security to have written to the Chief Secretary about how to divide the ex-service community? When shall we have a statement from him? Will the ministerial correspondence be published in full? And why make a plea to Japanese business men to help the former prisoners of war of their country, when the Secretary of State's letter so blatantly dishonours our war-disabled people?

Mr. Newton: I do not for one moment accept the right hon. Gentleman's rhetoric. I shall bring his point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, but he will know that, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State in another place has this morning met and discussed those matters with the Central Advisory Committee on War Pensions, in the proper and understood way.

Mr. Harry Greenway: May we have a debate next week on animal welfare, so that the view held by many hon. Members on both sides of the House that animals should be recognised as sentient beings in European legislation may be put across the Floor of the House; and so that we can investigate the possibility of lottery money being used to assist animal welfare organisations in the valuable work that so many of them do?

Mr. Newton: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's persistent and proper interest in animal welfare matters. Even so, I cannot promise time for a debate. The best opportunity in the next couple of weeks that I can think of would be the morning of Wednesday 18 December, when I will be here for three hours, during which time hon. Members can talk about any subject.

Mr. Peter Shore: The Leader of the House has conceded a debate on European monetary union and the stability pact next week, but he

has denied us a vote. Whatever consideration the Government have given to that—I note with regret that Opposition Front Benchers have not pressed for a vote—surely the Leader of the House realises that he has obligations to Back Benchers and that there are Back Benchers on both sides of the House who feel that sufficient progress has been made on the stability pact and on European monetary union for the House now to make clear how far we are prepared to go. We can indicate those limits to the Government only if there is an amendable motion.

Mr. Newton: I cannot add to what I said, which—perhaps understandably—I thought was extremely reasonable. The possibilities in that field are still under discussion and are not likely to be finally adopted for many months and detailed negotiation on the legal texts in respect of the stability pact has not even started.

Sir Jim Spicer: May I ask for my right hon. Friend's help? The right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and I are both advisers to the Royal British Legion. I understood that the Central Advisory Committee on War Pensions had approved of the changes, either yesterday afternoon or today. In view of what has been said today, it is now my intention to go—with, I hope, the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe—to meet the committee. Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House ensure that, together with the chairman of the committee and a representative of the Royal British Legion, we can then meet the appropriate Social Security Minister?

Mr. Newton: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security will look carefully at my hon. Friend's point. I can only confirm that those changes have been discussed this morning, in the usual and proper way, with the Central Advisory Committee on War Pensions.

Mr. Don Dixon: May I draw the Leader of the House's attention to early-day motion 302, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden)?
[That this House is seriously concerned by the continuing decline of the Merchant Navy; recalls the important role played by the merchant fleet for over a century including two world wars; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to address as a matter of urgency the effects the decline of the Merchant Navy has on the ship building industry, the port transport industry, the British seafarers and the economy as a whole.]
Bearing in mind the fact that we might be one of the only maritime nations in the world that does not have a maritime policy, will the right hon. Gentleman give us a debate on that subject in Government time on the Floor of the House?

Mr. Newton: I acknowledge the importance of the subject, but I cannot make an immediate promise along the lines that the right hon. Gentleman seeks. We have put in place a range of measures, including simplified procedures, liberalised officers' nationality requirements and many others, including tax incentives to replace aging tonnage. We believe that those measures are making a positive contribution to the industry's position.

Lady Olga Maitland: Will my right hon. Friend give urgent consideration to a debate on


the reform of the House of Lords proposed by the Labour party? Is he aware of the very deep concern felt by my constituents and further afield that there is an arrogant disregard for the constitution of our country, especially when the Labour party plans to flood the House of Lords with 700 life peers? Those important constitutional matters should be debated by all, and rejected.

Mr. Newton: I have already told my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) that I regard a debate to examine those aspects of the Opposition's policies as an attractive proposition, and I will bear my hon. Friend's further representations in mind.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: The Leader of the House may be aware that I was at Hillsborough on the fateful day of the tragedy. Will he arrange to hold a debate in the House as soon as possible? Many people, including the families of the Hillsborough victims, have not had a fair deal in the courts. I invite the Leader of the House to view tonight the film on that subject, or ask the Attorney-General to do so, so that they may better understand what happened that day.

Mr. Newton: I cannot make an immediate promise to watch the programme tonight, but I shall try to ensure that I view it subsequently, or at least gain a clear idea of what it says. I am sure that that will be true also of my right hon. and learned Friends the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General.

Mr. John Marshall: May we have an early debate on the situation in Cyprus, so that we can emphasise the need for Cyprus's application to join the European Union to be determined as a matter of urgency, regardless of whether there has been a political solution—welcome and necessary as that political solution would be?

Mr. Newton: I take note of my hon. Friend's suggestion and will bring it to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Does the Leader of the House consider that the debate on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill next week would be an ideal opportunity for the Secretary of State for Transport to make a statement about the safety case for reopening the channel tunnel? The right hon. Gentleman could come to the House and publish all the evidence on which the opening has been based, to reassure the general public that the service is now safe, and that the reopening is a responsible act which people will welcome.

Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend said that he would respond appropriately when the reports of the various inquiries that have been set up are available to him. Meanwhile, I understand that the intergovernmental commission, taking into account the advice of the independent Channel Tunnel Safety Authority, has raised no objection to the resumption of commercial passenger services through the tunnel, and undertook last Sunday an exercise that was one of several conditions that had to be

fulfilled to the safety authority's satisfaction before the authority was prepared to make a favourable recommendation.

Mr. Ian Bruce: May we have an early debate on the Commission for Racial Equality? Hon. Members know that many millions of pounds are voted for that organisation. It appears to be a fairly large waste of money, not least because, in recent days, an hon. Member made a racial attack on Finnish people because they were white and had blue eyes, and no action has vet been taken against that person, who, obviously, was trying to incite Afro-Caribbean people to hatred of those people.

Mr. Newton: I am sure that my hon. Friend's remarks, like those to which he refers, will be studied with great care by that organisation.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Speaking in my role as the only political leader who understands Scotland—[Laughter].—according to Labour party research—may I ask the Leader of the House for an immediate debate into some vital research documents that have been made public? Is the Leader of the House aware that people in Scotland seem to believe that the Leader of the Opposition is smarmy, untrustworthy and a Tory, but believe that the Prime Minister is ineffective, wimpish and a Tory? Does not that represent a crisis of Unionist leadership, which the House must address before Christmas?

Mr. Newton: The perceptions reported in the research seem somewhat mixed. One is bound to question them in view of the hon. Gentleman's initial point about attitudes to him.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: May I support the calls for a debate on the reform of the House of Lords? We have heard how the Opposition would destroy the second House of the United Kingdom Parliament, but they have not been clear about a replacement. On the one hand, they propose to promote 700 of Blair's boys and girls to the other House—which strikes me as sleaze on a grand scale—and, on the other hand, they propose elections to a second House which would compete with the democratic authority of this place.

Mr. Newton: Clearly demand for such a debate is growing by the minute, and I take careful note of it.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Is the Leader of the House aware that a recent answer to a parliamentary question revealed that the Government have decided riot to proceed with the sale of the Royal Greenwich observatories in my constituency? With the fate of so many other public sector research establishments hanging in the balance, will the Leader of the House call upon the President of the Board of Trade to make an early decision about those sales and make a statement to the House so that he may be questioned about the chaos that has resulted from the prior options review?

Mr. Newton: It will not surprise the hon. Lady to learn that I do not accept her terminology. The Government's purpose is to find the best way forward for those


organisations and to secure the best possible futures for them. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will examine her remarks with interest.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Did the Leader of the House hear the earlier question from the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir. I. Lawrence) and the ensuing rather shameful exchange when the Home Secretary endorsed the intemperate language of the hon. and learned Gentleman, who referred to the European Court of Human Rights as interfering, meddling foreigners? It is one thing for a Government Back Bencher to say that, but quite another for the Home Secretary to endorse his comments. I think that we should be very clear about the Government's attitude. Could there be some form of statement or explanation of the Government's real attitude towards the European Court of Human Rights?

Mr. Newton: The straightforward answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that I was present for only the last two or three minutes of Home Office questions, so I am not in a position to comment directly. I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of the exchange, but, as I am not in a position to comment, I shall draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. William O'Brien: In view of the widespread outbreaks of different strains of meningitis around the country, and the fact that some medical health officers are warning people of more possible outbreaks and some hospitals are opening closed wards to prepare for any such developments this winter, will the Leader of the House agree to a debate on that subject next week? It is an urgent matter about which many people have expressed anxiety. Will the Secretary of State for Health make a statement to the House allowing hon. Members to express their concerns? We need some policy guidance on how the Government plan to combat any further outbreaks of meningitis.

Mr. Newton: When outbreaks occur, guidelines are published and the outbreak teams follow them. I am quite sure that, if anything fresh emerges following the statement earlier this week by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales about the outbreak in Cardiff, appropriate guidance will be considered. I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's concerns to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the fact that next Monday we are to debate the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Bill, but the Leader of the House and right hon. and hon. Members will be aware that, throughout the past 28 years, service men and others have been severely injured and women have been widowed. Therefore, I press the Leader of the House for a statement so that we can examine what has been reported in the press, for many of us missed the earlier exchanges. My attention was drawn to the problems as a result of the case of Charles McConaghy, a former constituent, who was blinded and deafened, as well as receiving other injuries, in an IRA explosion. Under the new terms, he is losing about £50 a week in

compensation. Can we have a debate on that, because what have been called sweeteners seem to be saccharin—a substitute for the real thing?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman fairly acknowledged that he had not heard the earlier exchanges. I am not in a position to comment on a particular case, but as we are talking about medical advice that would affect future decisions, the hon. Gentleman might do well to examine with care what has already been said.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: May I lend the support of my right hon. and hon. Friends to the call that has been made three times in these exchanges from the right hon. Gentlemen's own Benches for a debate on the future of the House of Lords? That would enable us to consider in particular the view expressed yesterday by the Leader of the House of Lords that hereditary peers are more representative of the common man than are hon. Members elected to this House.

Mr. Newton: I note that support for such a debate has now spread from one side of the House to the other, which means that I must take even more notice.

Mr. Paul Flynn: When may we debate the question that the whole country is asking today: have the Government gone mad? All of us receive letters weekly from embittered ex-service men and women who feel that they have been cheated by the Government. They believe that they have sacrificed their health for their country, yet they are to be cheated again of £50 million. When will we debate that?

Mr. Newton: I have now commented, as has my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, several times on this. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reflect on whether he would find it acceptable, if medical advice produced an extended entitlement to benefits, for the Government to reject that medical advice. We really must consider whether we are going to rest on medical advice or not.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Since the Leader of the House has declined the suggestion of a debate and vote forthwith next Wednesday on the important stability pact regulations, will he consider, when further documents have been laid and further discussions have taken place, tabling the motion after such a debate?
As full official texts of the treaty that will be discussed in Dublin next weekend will not be available, will the Leader of the House ensure that at least a summary of what is proposed is before the House next Thursday?

Mr. Newton: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I have made the position clear in what I said at the outset. We will return to the House with a revised text next year once it is clearer how the eventual proposals will look. If the proposals are acceptable to the United Kingdom—we think that they should be in due course—we will seek scrutiny clearance. That is the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question.
On the second point, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State told the Scrutiny Committee earlier this year, we shall make the draft treaty document available to the


House as soon as is practicable, that is, within 24 hours of our having it. The House will have the opportunity to debate that fully as part of the two-day debate next week.

Mr. David Clelland: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate on today's statement by a senior health service manager from Newcastle, who said that national health service competition is not working and that it is being
pushed to deal in commodities and not patient care"?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman might acknowledge the support that there is around the country, for example for GP fundholding. He might choose to describe it in that way, but the fact is that most people are finding that it is producing a better service.

Mr. Barry Jones: Is not the Government's position on the working hours directive disgraceful? When will the Leader of the House organise a debate in Government time on the Floor of the House? The directive is appropriate to industrial society at the end of this century.

Mr. Newton: I often agree with the hon. Gentleman, but not on this occasion. His description of the Government's attitude to the directive is unreasonable. The Government are seeking to ensure that as many of his constituents as possible are employed, not unemployed.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Why must we wait until June next year, after the general election, before we can seek scrutiny clearance on the three important European Union documents? They were considered to be so important that they were pushed into European Standing Committee B, and if they had been carried there, they would have been taken forthwith on the Floor of the House. Why have the Government changed their position so dramatically?

Mr. Newton: I can make an additional point. At the time when the documents were sent for scrutiny in Committee, we expected interim political agreements at ECOFIN on 2 December, with subsequent endorsement from the Council in Dublin. In the event, negotiations proceeded more slowly, and agreement was not reached at ECOFIN on 2 December. The position with which we were dealing has now changed.

Mr. Tony Banks: Has the Leader of the House studied the report of the Office of the National Lottery on the sale of scratch cards to under-age persons? I have come to the conclusion that scratch cards are a curse. They were not properly discussed when the legislation to set up the lottery went through the House. The second weekly draw is coming along. We were promised that the lottery would be monitored, and that we

would have a chance to debate the issue. Many matters need to be discussed. May we have a debate on the workings of the national lottery, and particularly on its impact on charities?

Mr. Newton: It will not surprise the hon. Gentleman to know that I cannot promise a debate. I draw his attention to the fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage is due to answer questions before Christmas—on Monday 16 December.

Mr. Mike Hall: I refer the Leader of the House to the earlier questions about war pensions. My father, Thomas Hall, served in the Fleet Air Arm from 1942 to 1945, and suffered perforated eardrums when his ship was bombed. In later life, he had a hearing loss of between 10 per cent. and 20 per cent., but because of the Government's changes to the regulations he was not entitled to a weekly war pension. His hearing deteriorated, and he was later assessed as having a hearing loss of more than 20 per cent. He could not claim his war pension until October 1997. Sadly, my father died a week last Saturday, so he will not be able to claim that pension.
The Government are now changing the threshold from 20 per cent. to 40 per cent. That has nothing to do with doctors' advice: they are cheating pensioners of their entitlement. We deserve a debate on this issue soon.

Mr. Newton: As I cannot add to what I have said, I shall confine my response to expressing my sympathy to the hon. Gentleman for the family circumstances to which he referred.

Mr. Cynog Dafis: I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker, for more reasons than one!
I remind the Leader of the House that 1997 is an important year for global environmental policy and sustainable development. The Commission for Sustainable Development will meet in New York in April, and Earth summit II will be held at the General Assembly of the United Nations in June. Would it be appropriate for us to have a full debate in Government time on the Government's position on the important issues that will be discussed next year? We should have a statement from the Prime Minister on the Government's approach to the key themes, including an undertaking that he or his successor will attend the session at the United Nations in June.

Mr. Newton: It might be appropriate to have such a debate. That is an important subject. No one is in serious doubt that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, with the full backing of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, has played an important and leading role in such matters throughout the international negotiations.

BILL PRESENTED

PROTECTION FROM HARASSMENT

Mr. Howard, supported by the Prime Minister, Secretary Sir Patrick Mayhew, Mr. Secretary Portillo, Mr. Secretary Forsyth, Mr. Secretary Hague and Mr. David Maclean, presented a Bill to make provision for protecting persons from harassment and similar conduct: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 49].

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation,
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

AGRICULTURE

That the Home-Grown Cereals Authority Levy (Variation) Scheme (Approval) Order 1996 (S.I., 1996, No. 2843), dated 12th November 1996, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13th November, be approved.

INTERNATIONAL IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES

That the draft European Police Office (Legal Capacities) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 13th November, be approved.

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT

That the draft Scottish Enterprise (Aggregate Amount Outstanding) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 11th November, he approved. —[Mr. Knapman.]

Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees),

WASTE MANAGEMENT

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 9651/96 relating to waste management strategy: and endorses the Government's objective of broadly supporting the review so that future waste management strategy balances the need for a high level of environmental protection with the need for an appropriate level of regulation to ensure the functioning of the internal market.—[Mr. Knapntan.]

Question agreed to.

Harbours, Docks, Piers and Ferries

[Relevant documents: Memoranda relating to this Order contained in the Fifth Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments of Session 1996–97, HC 29-v.]

The Secretary of State for Transport (Sir George Young): I beg to move,
That the draft Port of Tyne Authority (Transfer of Undertaking) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 6th November, be approved.
The order will enable me to effect the transfer of the assets, rights, liabilities and duties of the Port of Tyne Authority to a company, which will be offered for sale. All property, rights and liabilities of the authority and all functions conferred or imposed on the authority by any local statutory provision will be transferred to the successor company already set up by the authority when the order comes into force. The most important such obligation is that of continuing to run a port on the Tyne.
I shall start by briefly setting the order in the context of the Government's policy on ports. Our objective for the ports industry has been that it should be capable, innovative and self-sufficient. The Government have done that by removing subsidies, by deregulation—abolishing the dock labour scheme—and by privatisation. They have sought to improve performance by promoting competition.
As a result, the efficiency of operations has been improved, efficiency gains have been made in the use of manpower, labour relations have improved, and substantial investments have been made. Our policies have succeeded and the benefits have not stopped at the ports. They have been to the advantage of all who depend on them and, to some extent, that means everyone in the country and many abroad.
The Ports Act 1991 is part of that story. It was introduced as an enabling measure, to provide a simpler and quicker mechanism than the private Bill procedure for trust ports to privatise themselves and take advantage of private sector input and practice, such as the investment of private capital. We introduced the measure because that is what a number of ports wanted to do. They were right to do so.
Six ports have used the voluntary privatisation procedure in the Ports Act—Tees and Hartlepool, Forth, Clyde, Medway and Tilbury in 1992 and, following their success, Dundee in 1995. New sources of finance have been tapped to provide new and improved facilities. Other advantages have followed and those ports have all prospered as a result.
Let us consider briefly the progress that has been made. Between 1992 and 1995, Tees and Hartlepool achieved an increase in turnover of more than 20 per cent., and an increase in pre-tax surplus over the same period approaching 100 per cent. The chief executive says:
I think since privatisation there has been a fairly significant change in the culture of the port. I think there is an awareness that we are providing a privatised business that has to succeed. About 40 per cent. of employees have shares—we were greatly surprised by the number of people who wanted to take shares in the business".

Mr. Andrew Smith: On the Secretary of State's claims for the privatised ports, is it not the case that the port of Tyne's pre-tax surplus increased by 172 per cent. between 1992 and 1994, which is better than that of three of the privatised ports to which he referred?

Sir George Young: The tonnage carried in that period decreased, however. That was not an expansion period for that port. Clyde's turnover and tonnage—it is not just the turnover—increased by 33 per cent. and its pre-tax profits by 58 per cent. between 1992 and 1995. In their 1995 annual report, the directors reported:
Another satisfactory year … acquisition of new waterfront facility will provide increased opportunities for expansion and diversification".
Lloyd's List in May this year said:
In 1992 Clydeport considered closing its Greenock operation due to lack of business … now the group is more concerned it will run out of capacity at Greenock and has therefore bought a neighbouring site".
If we look at Forth, we find the same impressive story. In the 1995 annual report and accounts, the chairman notes:
Turnover has increased by 32 per cent. to reach £47.3m … Profit before tax was up £15.3m (up from £13.9m in 1994)".
The position of Forth has been helped by the acquisition of Tilbury and Dundee. Lloyd's List recently noted:
At one time damned by an image of crumbling infrastructure and fractious labour relations, Tilbury has re-emerged over the past few years to mount an increasing challenge to its more recently developed competitors at Felixstowe and the Isle of Grain. Tilbury's recent history has been recounted a thousand times—abolition of the Dock Labour Scheme, followed by a management-led privatisation and ultimately the sale to Forth Ports Group. Those dramatic changes have served to revolutionise the culture and business attitudes at the port, now being driven by Forth Ports' desire to generate realistic returns on investment".
That has, of course, been the general experience of privatisation, and it is what we should expect for the privatisation of Tyne. The evidence all points in one direction: port privatisation substantially improves port performance.
Privatisation does not reduce the responsibilities of port authorities. All their obligations under general law continue, and the Ports Act provides that all functions conferred or imposed on an authority by any statutory provision are transferred to any successor company. The Act also specifically applies the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, which provide statutory protection for employees from takeovers to transfers under the Ports Act. Additionally, there is provision for a clawback levy to be applied on a sliding scale to all land disposals during the first 10 years following privatisation. So the taxpayer would benefit from sale of surplus land.
The users of the port will continue to benefit—as do all users of UK ports—from the Harbours Act 1964, which gives me a statutory right of appeal against unreasonable port dues. The right is important, because the public right of access to ports depends upon the payment of those dues. The right is in reserve, but it is rarely used. There is no doubt—because of commercial pressures generated by the promotion of competition in the ports industry, as I have already mentioned—that commercial

pressure keeps down fees. The right has never been exercised for any of the privatised trust ports since they were privatised.

Mr. Don Dixon: If privatisation is so good, why are the Government not privatising the port of Dover?

Sir George Young: The port of Dover has given an undertaking voluntarily to privatise itself in 1997.
With that background on the Government's ports policy and the Ports Act, I come to the privatisation of the Port of Tyne Authority. Our intention in seeking the compulsory privatisation of the Port of Tyne Authority is to create an opportunity for the port to share the benefits gained by the entrepreneurial and innovative approach more generally found in the private sector.
The Port of Tyne Authority has not ruled out privatisation. Indeed, in the authority's response of September 1995 to the consultation on compulsory privatisation, it states that it welcomes the provisions of the Ports Act that enable voluntary privatisation, and even accepts that compulsory privatisation may be needed in certain circumstances. However, it does not consider that its port would benefit. With all respect, however, and in no spirit of criticism, I have to say that it cannot be disinterested, and that it is only natural for the authority, and indeed for others connected with the port, to perceive proposed privatisation as a threat or criticism. It is not.
Privatisation is based on the general experience, in this country and others, that it brings a change of culture that benefits and improves overall performance. Taking the port fully into the private sector will not undermine what has already been achieved. Rather, it will open up more opportunities for innovation and entrepreneurial development, to the benefit of port users and the wider Tyneside community. Privatisation can be expected to lead to a more dynamic approach to investment, exploiting more fully the authority's financial capacity, to the benefit of the region. So we believe that the port's future development will be best handled in the private sector.
I should like to deal with some of the concerns that have been expressed in the consultation exercise. Some concern has been expressed about timing, arising mainly from uncertainties because of decline in the coal trade. It is not surprising that there have been both positive and negative developments in the port's business in recent years—that is the nature of the ports business. Waiting for a steady state would mean that no port could ever be privatised. Potential purchasers and their advisers should have no substantial difficulty in assessing and allowing for any uncertainties in the future business of Tyne. The port has indeed shown that it can adapt to changing trade patterns.
The powers of compulsion in section 10 of the Ports Act enable me compulsorily to privatise any trust port with a turnover exceeding £5 million, at 1991 prices, following consideration of responses to a succession of consultation exercises, and with the consent of Parliament.
My right hon. Friend the previous Secretary of State consulted the Port of Tyne Authority, in June 1995, to ascertain its views on privatisation, and it was asked to respond within three months. As I explained, we were not convinced by the authority's arguments against


privatisation, and I wrote to the chairman on 15 November last year to direct the authority to form a company and prepare a transfer scheme, to enable the authority to transfer all its property, rights, liabilities and functions to that company. A model transfer scheme was provided to the port authority for consideration, and the actions were to be completed by the end of February this year. The Port of Tyne Authority complied with that timetable and advertised its scheme in March, inviting anyone who wished to do so to send representations to me.
The scheme submitted by the Port of Tyne Authority, although based on a model provided by my Department, included a number of additional provisions that would have been likely to constrain the operation and development of the port, which I shall come to in a moment. In my view, it would not have been possible to make the scheme accord with advice previously given. I therefore considered making my own scheme, as provided for in section 12 of the Act, and consulted the Port of Tyne Authority and considered its views before advertising the proposed scheme and inviting representations.
Following consideration of the representations, I was and am still minded to proceed. My proposed scheme forms the schedule to the order before the House. It follows closely the transfer schemes used in previous privatisations, including that in Ipswich, which was approved by Parliament earlier this year. I considered the additional provisions proposed in the Port of Tyne Authority's scheme to be unacceptable and unnecessary. Their removal was the main focus of representations made to me on my proposed scheme.
The provisions raised an important and difficult issue. A transfer scheme concerns the transfer of property, rights, liabilities and statutory functions of the port authority to a successor company. It is not appropriate for such a scheme to contain provisions that are not directly connected with the transfer but intended to impose new, on-going commitments on the successor company. There is even a question whether such on-going provisions would be intra vires.
Such doubts and the difficulty and inappropriateness of each of the proposals led me to propose my scheme. As I said, it follows very closely the schemes used for all the voluntary privatisations and the scheme being followed for Ipswich, which was discussed in Committee earlier this year.
The authority's proposals covered aspects of pension and employee rights. There is, of course, general protective legislation in those matters, which will apply to the successor company, and there is no case for or way of imposing further legal obligations on that company. I of course understand that such matters are of concern and I shall be prepared to consider with the authority what might be included in the sale objectives, to allow prospective purchasers' intentions to be considered in the evaluation of bids.
There was no justification for the authority's proposed consultative committee, with its extraordinary range of powers, which would have shackled any new management in a totally unacceptable way. The successor company will be just as capable as the port authority of continuing

good relations with local interests. Indeed, it will be in its commercial interest so to do, as evidenced by the conduct of port businesses already in the private sector.
The proposed consultative committee was to have held a special share, provided for in the company documents for Port of Tyne plc—the company set up by the port authority in accordance with directions earlier this year. Subject to parliamentary approval of the order, we shall direct that the relevant article—article 30—be deleted from the company's articles of association, that other consequential amendments be made, and that a few minor amendments to bring the company documents into line with Companies Acts regulations also be made.
The authority also questioned whether a new owner would have sufficient funds to invest. The Government's position is that anyone making a bid will do so on the basis that they will be able to operate the port profitably thereafter. No one would make a bid that put them in a position where they were not then able to operate the port profitably.
The authority also maintained that the port's wide legal powers meant that the benefits of privatisation would not be significant. Although in some privatisations, the wider powers available to a company have certainly improved the ability of ports to operate, the benefits of privatisation are not confined to that one factor. Privatisation in the ports and other industries has shown that benefits flow from the conversion to a full commercial operation based on shareholder equity and interest. The authority's scheme also included a general provision relating to on-going maintenance of the port, how profits should be used and local management of the port, but there is no case for such a provision.
Subject to parliamentary approval of the draft order, the sale of the port will be undertaken by the Port of Tyne Authority and its advisers. Ministers intend to discuss the process and the timetable with the chairman immediately. I want to discuss the desirability of encouraging a management-employee buy-out offer—a MEBO—with substantial employee share ownership.
We believe that it is appropriate to proceed with the privatisation. I therefore commend the order to the House.

Mr. Andrew Smith: The Secretary of State's speech and the imposition of the order mark a sad day in the history of British ports. For the first time, the Government are forcing through the privatisation—indeed, the expropriation—of a trust port against the will of the port and in the face of the views of 98 per cent. of those who commented in the consultation process, including many businesses.
We are witnessing Tory privatisation for the sake of it. That was clear from the fact that the Secretary of State spent half his speech talking about privatisation before he got round to mentioning the port of Tyne.
Unlike the Conservatives, Labour is not obsessed with public or private ownership, but is concerned with what can work best for the users of the port, for those who work there and for those in the surrounding area who rely on the prosperity that the port creates. We believe that ports can flourish in the public or private sector.
It is abundantly obvious that the port of Tyne is succeeding in developing its business, in investing and in sustaining the confidence of its customers. It should not be forced to undergo the uncertainty and cost of privatisation simply to satisfy Conservative dogma.
The Port of Tyne Authority is already meeting the objectives that the Government say that they want privatisation to achieve. The Secretary of State said that he wanted the port to be innovative and self-sufficient. It has been innovative and self-sufficient—it has the widest possible powers of any port to enter into joint ventures to develop its business; it has significantly increased its attractiveness to companies; and it has already successfully taken steps to secure the regeneration of virtually all its developable surplus land, as the Secretary of State has said. Its financial position is such that it has had no need to obtain share capital, nor has it had any difficulty in borrowing from the financial markets. Last year, the port paid off the last remaining part of its debt. This year, it announced an £8 million investment plan as part of its programme to tackle the decline in its traditional trade of coal. All that was managed without recourse to borrowing.
I can understand a Government who have doubled—no less—the national debt in the past six years being jealous of that achievement, but that gives no grounds for this vindictive and damaging order. The port's operating record also does not justify the privatisation: it operates to more overseas ports than any other in the United Kingdom; last year, it was used by more than 360,000 passengers and almost 60,000 cars; and the number of passengers is expected to increase by 50 per cent. next year. It has diversified its trade and won new business. It was chosen by Nissan as its car terminal despite competition from the privatised Tees and Hartlepool Authority. The port of Tyne won because of the competitive pricing structure made possible by its financial position and Nissan's confidence in the long-term stability of the authority's management.
New agreements have been concluded, including one with Warrant Distribution Ltd., involving the construction of a further 16,000 sq m of transit shed accommodation. Exploiting market opportunities in the container business, the authority developed a new berth and storage compound in 1991. Those facilities are now used by Mitsui OSK Lines to provide just-in-time services to Nissan and other key manufacturers in the region. The port now handles 22,000 containers a year—traffic that has been developed in just four years.
The port has developed diversification, made more investment, generated more business and made higher profits. That is a record that should be rewarded, not penalised. Yet the port is being penalised and has already been damaged by the threat of forced privatisation. The port believes that that uncertainty led to DFDS terminating its freight service from the Tyne. Hundreds of thousands of pounds have already been consumed on external consultants, accountants and lawyers in the privatisation process. The port fears that privatisation would be likely to see a rise in port charges, cuts in capital expenditure and uncertainty and upheaval that would prejudice the authority's efforts to find new trade to replace the declining coal traffic.
The authority takes the example of the privatised Tees and Hartlepool port, which has seen a post-privatisation cut in capital investment of almost 60 per cent. since 1992. No wonder that the authority board members—the majority of whom were appointed by the Secretary of State for Transport—recognise the

dangers of forced privatisation and unanimously oppose it. Surely it is entirely reasonable, and in the public interest, for the port to resist the pressure that it fears to cut investment or to strip and sell off its assets. At present, all the profit from the port is available for reinvestment in infrastructure, port services arid local regeneration.
It cannot be wrong, given the port's record, for the authority to choose to continue to have the opportunity to build on its investment and not be driven instead by possibly short-term shareholder pressure, especially given the uncertainties that it faces in its traditional coal business. After all, the Government agreed with that view when they withdrew their plan to privatise the port of Dover after local and national representations. It seems as if the only crime that the users and employees of the port of Tyne have committed is not to be situated in a Conservative marginal seat such as Dover.
Of course, on that plan, the Secretary of State for Transport stated that uncertainties about the impact of the channel tunnel on that port's prospects meant that it would not be appropriate to privatise it until the position became clearer. If that was the Government's case on Dover, there is a comparable one on the Tyne. The decline in coal traffic has had a significant impact on the immediate financial prospects of the port and has created a volatility that will make it similarly difficult to value the undertaking for sale purposes. That is a sound argument and, as the port has pointed out, it is unreasonable for the Secretary of State to attempt to proceed at this stage with compulsory privatisation proposals.
It is particularly unreasonable for the Secretary of State to proceed without incorporating any of the provisions that the authority drew up in its scheme under the Ports Act 1991, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. Those provisions would have protected port users from excessive increases in dues in the first five years of privatisation. They would have required any new owner to maintain the port to at least the same high standards as before privatisation and would have prevented port profits from being siphoned off for non-port purposes. They would have safeguarded terms and conditions for employees and protected pension rights. They would also have given port users, local authorities and other interested bodies a voice in the privatised port through the consultative committee, with a golden share to ensure that no action could be taken that was in any way detrimental to the port.
In rejecting, as the Secretary of State has, not just some but all of those protections for employees, users and the region, he is giving a signal that he would be happy to see increases in dues, falling standards, and terms and conditions, pensions and the interests of the region undermined. All those important factors are as nothing compared with his obdurate determination to impose privatisation on his dogmatic terms. Where is the freedom of choice that he and his party used to like to boast a belief in?
The proposed privatisation is the first time that any Secretary of State for Transport has imposed the transfer.

Sir George Young: That is the second time that the hon. Gentleman has called the order the first. It is not. Proposals for Ipswich were taken in Committee earlier this year, with much less objection from the Opposition. This is the second one.

Mr. Smith: The Government submitted a scheme—I see that the Secretary of State is nodding. It is a true sign
of a tired and incompetent Government that they are resorting to extreme measures and forcing through their dogma in that way. Indeed, so incompetent were they that they could not even get their own procedures right for advertising the scheme that they put forward, and they had to go round the course again.
If the Secretary of State and the Government will not accept the arguments that I have set out, or the views of the port and its employees, the local authorities or the people of the region, perhaps he will listen to what private business has said about the privatisation.
The chief executive of Mitsui OSK Lines said:
My colleagues in Japan and Europe all feel strongly that the process and effect of Privatisation of the Port of Tyne will, at the very least"—
[Interruption.] The Secretary of State ought at least to listen to what the European chief executive of Mitsui has to say on behalf of his company. He says that privatisation will
at the very least, result in instability and uncertainty, which will damage confidence in the region, to the detriment of present and future inward investment. We therefore request that you make every effort to retain the present status quo as a Trust Port.
That plea is directed at a Government who are always boasting of their concern for inward investment. Here is an important inward investor saying that privatisation will damage its business, yet the Government do not respond.
RJB Mining is the company that the Government entrusted with the running of the national coal industry, yet its representatives said:
The implications and potential risks of privatisation are something of an unknown quantity, whereas I am confident that the maintenance of the status quo would enable us to build on our existing understanding to secure continued business through the port. Our preference, therefore, would be to see no change to the current arrangements".
I could list many more examples of representations made on the port, pleading for it to retain its current status. Opinion among port users, employees, local authorities and others in the region is overwhelmingly against compulsory privatisation of the port. Of 330 representations made to the Secretary of State about his scheme, only four were in favour. And who did those four come from? Prospective bidders—and three of those were so confident of the persuasive power of their views that they declined to have them published.
Instead of Tory privatisation dogma, let us listen to local people and to business, and recognise that forced privatisation would be bad for business, bad for shipping and bad for Newcastle, just like the Government who are driving it through. Let us vote for the freedom of choice for the port of Tyne to remain a trust port, and reject the order.

Mr. Neville Trotter: Tyneside's strong maritime history goes back to the days of the Romans, although in practice its prosperity is based on the coal trade.
One hundred years ago, more than 3 million tonnes of coal was exported from the Tyne. It was the foundation of the industrial prosperity of the whole river and Tyneside area. In 1923, 22 million tonnes of coal was shipped from the river, and we now have the most modern coal facility in the country, with a capacity of 5 million tonnes a year.
Unfortunately, the market for coal has disappeared. Last year, only 2 million tonnes was exported from the port, and the representatives of the port have admitted that it is prudent to assume that the trade will soon cease altogether. That is an important factor in considering the plans for the future of the port. It must be able to adapt further to changed circumstances. Although the port made a big profit last year, it cannot rely on that continuing if it simply remains as it is.
In 1970, 4 million tonnes of other traffic went through the port; now, it is down to half that figure. In the port's heyday, the number of ships entering the river was 40 a day, or 14,000 a year; by 1970, it was down to 12 ships a day; now, it is down to only four or five ships a day. The Tees has 10 times the amount of business that the Tyne has. When I looked at the official statistics for the port industry, I saw that the Tyne was not in the list of top ports. It is the only major river in the country not listed as a major port. We should bear in mind the realities of the situation.
There is a positive side. We have heard about Nissan coming to the Tyne. That was a big achievement for the port. Nissan exports 80 per cent. of its production to 36 countries, including Japan. It is the biggest car exporter in the country and exports 5,000 cars a week from the Tyne.
We have a booming ship repair industry, which is revitalised and highly competitive. We have a successful offshore industry, with Amec and Swan Hunter employing many people again, and other firms such as A and P Appledore, McNulty and Tyne Tees.
The river has been cleaned up. One of the most remarkable achievements in recent times has been the success of the Tyne and Wear development corporation, in particular, in redeveloping the river frontage. Some years ago, the Tyne had become miles of dereliction—an eyesore. Now, it is revitalised, modernised and attractive to new business.
Fears have been expressed about the sale of port land for development, but we have heard from both sides in the debate that that has already happened. Land has already been disposed of by the Tyne and Wear development corporation, which successfully carried out the redevelopment.
We have heard fears expressed on behalf of employees, but as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out, they will be protected by legislation. In his opening speech, my right hon. Friend also referred to the benefit of share ownership. That is important. Employees can participate through share ownership in the new company. That would be encouraged, as my right hon. Friend said in his presentation to the port. In many of the ports that have been privatised, more than half the shares ended up being owned by people who worked in the port. That is a positive development.
There are fears that the new company will have the wrong financial motivation. It must be in the interests of the owners that success should follow from the transfer of ownership. They want the port to succeed—that is why


they are acquiring it. They will achieve that by satisfying their existing customers and attracting new ones. The new company will remain a statutory harbour authority. For reasons that I do not understand, it is feared that port facilities will be closed. The company will have the same duties and responsibilities under the Ports Act 1991 as the present port authority has. It will not be able to dispose of operational land without the approval of Parliament. There will have to be an opportunity for objections to be raised to such a proposal and, if there were objections, there would have to be a public inquiry.
There are fears that charges will be increased. If I read the figures correctly, on a turnover of £14 million, the port made a profit of £5 million. If I were one of the port users, I might already bear that fact in mind. The 1991 Act states that charges must be reasonable. If there were any misguided attempt to increase the charges—I do not see why there should be—there is a right of appeal to the Secretary of State. That right of appeal has never been used in any of the previous port privatisations.
Some ports seemed to be efficient before they were privatised, but they are more efficient now, after privatisation. Port privatisation has been an undoubted success and experience from one end of the country to the other does not bear out the fears that have been expressed. Privatisation has brought increased business, profit and capital investment.
I see no reason to doubt that the Tyne will be another success story. We have a long and proud history on the Tyne, and I look to a positive future. We have a well-situated port for traffic to north-east Europe and we have further opportunities through the offshore industries.

Mr. A.J. Beith: I declare an interest as an occasional user and licence payer on the river. Why is the hon. Gentleman so ready to ignore the views of all the established users, including Nissan and Color Line? The burden of representations was not just overwhelmingly, but totally, against the scheme proposed by the Secretary of State.

Mr. Trotter: I shall not detain the House by reading out the long letter from the chamber of commerce, which was a sensible summary of the views of 3,000 firms that trade in the north-east. It was a rational expression of the matters that must be addressed by the Secretary of State. I was about to deal with the matter in my concluding remarks.
When the Secretary of State judges the bids, he does not have to accept the highest offer. I remind the House that the bids will be assessed in the first instance by the port authority, which will make a recommendation to the Secretary of State. There have been examples where the highest offer has not been accepted for the reasons discussed in the debate. In the case of Tees and Hartlepool, if price had been the only criterion, the highest bid would have been accepted, but the board considered that the high price was not sufficient to overcome its preference. In the interests of the port's independence and long-term stability and the benefit of the community, another offer was accepted.
The Secretary of State hardly needs to be told that, when the time comes to consider the bids, we should not necessarily accept the highest offer.

Mr. Jim Cousins: Will the hon. Gentleman also invite the Secretary of State

to guarantee that the cash reserves of the port, which are substantial, should be reserved for the development of the port and its uses?

Mr. Trotter: The future funding of the port must be one of the major factors affecting the consideration of the bids. I am sure that the Secretary of State will bear that factor in mind. Investment should be guaranteed. That should be one of the requirements on those who offer bids.
I want an active and vibrant river for the future. I hope that a successful bid will emerge, and I do not believe that the fears that have been expressed will materialise.

Mr. Don Dixon: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), who advanced a good case against the nonsensical scheme that has been proposed by the Secretary of State for Transport.
Having lived on the banks of the River Tyne for 67 years, and having worked all my working life in the shipyards on the River Tyne until I retired from gainful employment in 1979 and came to this place, I speak with a certain amount of knowledge about the area.
Needless to say, I oppose the privatisation scheme. I never thought when I entered the House in 1979 that I would rise to defend a quango, but that is what I am doing today. Unlike most of the trust ports, all the non-executive directors of the Port of Tyne Authority are appointed by the Secretary of State, so it is a quango.
I have raised the issue of the port of Tyne on two occasions. The first was 16 years ago, when I was concerned about the reclamation of the Jarrow Slake. The Secretary of State knows how to step over homeless people sleeping rough when he is on his way to the opera, but he probably does not know a great deal about the Jarrow Slake. It was an area of mud ponds between the River Tyne and the road that runs from South Shields to the Tyne tunnel. They were used as curing ponds for large baulks of timber. I recall that, as a small child, I played on those baulks of timber.
I raised the matter in 1980, because the reclamation of the Jarrow Slake was taking so long. The Minister who replied to the Adjournment debate then is now the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In fairness to him, I should say that he came up and visited the area after the Adjournment debate. During the debate, I was extremely critical of the port of Tyne, having been involved in negotiations with that body when I was a member of South Tyneside council.
The Jarrow Slake has now been reclaimed. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East referred to it. The Tyne car terminal is now situated on that land, from where Nissan recently exported its 300,000th car. It used to be mudflats. It was reclaimed and developed using the reserves of the port of Tyne. It is now one of the best car exporting facilities in the United Kingdom. I must give the Port of Tyne Authority credit for that.
The second time I raised the issue was on 22 May this year, during one of the Adjournment debates prior to the Whitsun recess. I pointed out that the Tyne Improvement Commission was set up in 1850, and that it did a tremendous job in excavating 50 million tonnes of soil to make the Tyne a port and to allow it to deal with large ships. The commission ran until 1968, when the present Port of Tyne Authority was set up.
Under the direction of the Port of Tyne Authority, the port today is one of the most efficient and flexible in Europe—which is why the Secretary of State wants to flog it off. If the port was not a success, the Government would not get a buyer. In the past 12 years, the authority has invested more than £45 million in berths and equipment and played a major role, with the development agencies, in trying to attract investment and new industries to our region. The authority has large capital reserves and no outstanding debts. I can imagine why the four potential buyers are keen to get their hands on the assets of the Port of Tyne Authority.
The port's newly appointed managing director, David Clifford, has said:
The Port of Tyne has carefully prepared itself for the needs of the 21st century, and now looks for increased support from port users, for cargoes starting and finishing their journeys in the region.
Like everyone else in the area, I am opposed to the privatisation. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East referred to a number of local groups, and I wish to go through the list of representations made to the Secretary of State. What is the good of the Secretary of State having consultation if, after everyone he has consulted has stated that they are opposed to it, he decides to privatise?
Some 173 employees of the PTA wrote to the Secretary of State, and all 173 opposed the privatisation scheme. Eight trade unions wrote in, and all eight opposed the scheme. Seventy-three members of the general public wrote in, and 62 opposed the scheme. The Secretary of State must have some relatives in the area, because 11 people did not oppose the scheme. All five local authorities in the area opposed the privatisation. Some 21 port users were opposed to the privatisation, as were local peers and Members of Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) is the secretary of the northern group of Labour Members, and he wrote in on behalf of the group. I also wrote in, but my letter is not included in the list of representations. Another 17 organisations wrote in; all were opposed.
I wish to elaborate on what my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East said. Among those who wrote in to oppose the scheme was the Tyne Port Users Association, which has a membership of 37 companies with over 8,000 employees. It wrote:
We are a non-political affiliated organisation and are extremely concerned about the proposed Government's privatisation scheme".
Warrant Distribution Ltd. is a relative newcomer to the port of Tyne; it established there only in 1993. It said:
We see no justification in commercial terms for privatising the port at this time, and can only imagine that the Secretary of State's decision is based purely on political dogma.
Shepherd's Scrap Metals—a well-known firm on the Tyne—wrote:
We have followed the progress of the privatisation with increasing alarm and are dismayed that the Secretary of State has not taken into consideration the views of users of the port".
The Institute of Chartered Shipbrokers said:
We totally oppose the new proposals outlined by the Secretary of State. It is our opinion that no useful purpose can be gained by privatising the Port of Tyne.
Even the South Shields Conservative association has said that the Minister should have regard to port users. The South Shields Conservative association is not the most

progressive organisation in the country, and I mean progressive with a small "p"; at one time its members would stand in local elections only as "Progressive" candidates. A couple of years ago, they became brave and stood as Conservatives. The result has been that, out of 60 seats in the local authority, they have none. But even that organisation is concerned about the privatisation.
Any reasonable person would take note of that opposition, and no one—other than the four potential buyers—is in favour of the privatisation. Every other organisation, every individual, every trade union and every local authority is opposed to the scheme. The proposals are pure political dogma, and are being brought in at the fag end of a Parliament by a Government who have lost all respect throughout the country. They know for a fact that this is the last possible privatisation.
Originally, the Government wanted three trust ports to be privatised—Dover, Ipswich and the Tyne. The Minister referred to them. We know that the Ipswich privatisation went into Committee, where we opposed it and voted against it. Despite the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Cann), that privatisation went through. The privatisation of the port of Dover was stopped after the intervention of Her Royal Highness the Queen Mother and Vera Lynn, who were concerned that a French harbour company might buy the port of Dover. It would be no good singing about the white cliffs of Dover if they were owned by France. That is why the Government dropped that privatisation. In addition, the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) will not be here after the election as he has a marginal seat and no one can save him. Even dropping the privatisation of the port of Dover will not save him.
This proposal has been opposed by everyone in the area, and I hope that it will be opposed by enough hon. Members to kill it tonight.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: I welcome the proposal, which is an important piece in the jigsaw of the regeneration of the River Tyne. Standing here at nearly 5 pm on a Thursday, in what can be described as a thinly attended House, I am reminded of earlier days when we discussed similar matters. The hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) tried to make a brave fist of it, but I seem to have heard the phrases "price increases", "falling standards" and "pure political dogma" before in reference to privatisations. Labour Members used those phrases about British Telecom, British Airways, British Rail, British Steel and British Coal. Every time the Government proposed a privatisation, Opposition Members have stood up to complain.
We know perfectly well, as do consumers, that privatisation is a success. It is not that the companies that have been privatised were failing—many were, but not all—but they have made significant improvements in the way they are run, and I see no reason why the Port of Tyne Authority cannot do the same. The authority has its critics—we are aware of that. Some say that it has allowed its infrastructure to run down over the years; others have said that it has not been diligent enough in dredging the river. Still others believe that it has allowed too big a cash mountain of assets to build up—it was £19 million at one stage, although I believe it is now lower than that.
The criticisms are unfair. The Port of Tyne Authority has had to deal with a difficult period in the development of the river, following the remorseless decline of


traditional industries such as coal shipping, steel and shipbuilding. For the first time, the Tyne now has some prospects of real growth in the new sunrise industries. My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) mentioned the offshore industry, which will make particular demands on the port. Some companies involved in the offshore business might be interested in the port itself because they would like it to be better designed for their kind of growing business, and it is in such businesses that the Tyne will have a great future.
I will not repeat what my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth said; he set out the case extremely well. I believe that a change of culture will be of considerable benefit to the port. Hon. Members who do not know about the north-east of England—there are not many in the Chamber—should be aware of the tremendous renaissance that has taken place on the river, and everyone should be proud of that. I am proud of the way in which the city of Newcastle and its quayside have developed and of the new developments down the Tyne. They are there because of the operations of organisations such as the Tyne and Wear development corporation and the grants given by the Government.
Above all, the Tyne is recovering because of the Government's economic policies. The Government were brave enough to take tough and painful decisions about the coal industry and about the Swan Hunter shipyard when it ran into trouble. Opposition Members called for greater subsidies for the coal and shipbuilding industries, but the Government's tough decisions have allowed new industries to grow on those sites. Without that, there would not have been a renaissance on the Swan Hunter yard site where, rather than a sunset industry there is a sunrise industry. That is what we must build on, and it is why we want the port in private hands, with new ideas and innovation.

Mr. Chris Davies: Liberal Democrats want efficient, innovative and successful businesses throughout the country. We oppose the privatisation, because the Port of Tyne Authority is just such an organisation. We have heard how the trustees of the authority are appointed, so it might come as a bit of a surprise that Liberal Democrats should give such backing and praise to an organisation that owes its origins so much to the Secretary of State—but we do.
It is worth hearing what the Secretary of State's appointees have to say to him about the proposal. They have written to him submitting
that there is overwhelming evidence that privatisation of the Port of Tyne, rather than enhancing the commercial prospects of the Port
as he suggests,
would damage customer confidence, jeopardise the Port's prospects at a sensitive time of transition and lead to a loss of trade and investment, with serious implications for the North-East region.
As the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) rightly said, this is privatisation for privatisation's sake. I listened carefully to the Secretary of State. I had looked forward to hearing convincing arguments that would persuade me that there was some flaw in what I had been told by the Port of Tyne Authority and by those who support its case, and that it was in fact a moribund organisation, the removal and replacement of which by a

body purely in the private sector would be to the benefit of the north-east as a whole, but I found no such arguments in what he said.
The Secretary of State referred only to the general experience that privatisation is beneficial. He suggested that all the evidence was one way, but he produced not evidence but a series of assertions that are challenged not only in the House and by millions of people throughout the country but by many of our strongest economic rivals, who run their infrastructure rather differently from the way in which the Conservatives have run ours over the past 18 years.
The Port of Tyne Authority does not even have to work within the straitjacket of financial restrictions such as those imposed by the Government on the Post Office or on Manchester airport; it is able to invest, and it does. In proportion to its income, the port has invested twice as much as the Medway and Forth ports and three times as much as Tilbury and Clyde, and it has plans to invest a further £15 million in infrastructure improvement over the next five years. It is not sitting on the surplus land but handing it over for development by other organisations.
If the Secretary of State can point to any evidence, I suspect that it will be purely one-sided. His point about declining tonnage demonstrated that we were being given selected figures. He said that the port of Tyne had witnessed a decline in tonnage in recent years, and compared that with the situation on the Clyde. He did not, however, mention that the crucial reason for that is that coal production in the north-east is still declining, whereas in Scotland it has been virtually finished off already.
The Secretary of State did not cite one port user who wants the privatisation to take place. We have heard of some of those who do not want it to take place, and I want to draw attention to some other representations that have been made. For example, the chief executive of Mitsui O S K. Lines—not exactly a small company, but one of the organisations that has made Japan great and had a tremendous impact throughout the world—wrote:
My colleagues in Japan and Europe all feel strongly that the process and effect of Privatisation of the Port of Tyne will, at the very least, result in instability and uncertainty, which will damage confidence in the region, to the detriment of present and future inward investment.
That is from a Japanese company that has invested heavily in the north-east.
A letter from Color Line, which operates from the international ferry terminal, shipping more than 100,000 passengers a year to Norway, said:
We regard the Port of Tyne Authority in its present form as giving us very good support, assistance and service … We fear that any major changes in the ownership structure … could have a severe effect on our future operation.
A letter from Banks, which is involved in opencast mining and is not likely to be entirely sympathetic to the views of Opposition Members, said:
the Tyne Coal Terminal … we consider to be a most efficient and cost effective operation with which we are very pleased … As far as we are concerned the Status Quo is more than satisfactory".
A letter from Stanton Grove, the paper handling company, said:
The commercial awareness and enterprise of your staff was instrumental in the selection of the Tyne. We cannot see any advantage in privatisation".
That is the verdict of the port users.


Will the Minister tell us which port users are calling for the privatisation to take place? My understanding is that of 333 representations made to the Secretary of State, only four were strongly in favour of the privatisation—and those were from potential bidders.
I do not represent a constituency in the north-east and my area in the north-west is not directly affected by the privatisation, but I am concerned about the implications, as the compulsory privatisation of a major transport undertaking may prove a precursor to an attempt to privatise Manchester airport.
The Port of Tyne Authority is owned by a trust that is dedicated to meeting the needs of those who use the facility and reinvests the money that it makes for that purpose. In that sense, it is similar to Manchester airport which, despite being handicapped by Government restrictions, is ploughing back its profits in investment. If the airport were privatised, I fear that the new owners would milk it for short-term profits rather than invest in the future.
The examples of the Port of Tyne Authority and Manchester airport demonstrate that the quality of a company is affected not only by ownership, but by whether the management has a clear sense of direction, is innovative and runs the operation on sound business lines. That is the case with Manchester airport, the Post Office and the Port of Tyne Authority. I strongly believe that the Secretary of State and his colleagues should keep their hands off them.

Mr. David Clelland: This is a privatisation too far. I was tempted to say a bridge too far, because the river's bridges are as famous and as potent a symbol of the north as the Tyne itself. Indeed, my constituency is named after the most recognisable of the six main transport crossings between Gateshead and Newcastle.
One consequence of the Government's interference in the locality and the dash-for-cash mentality behind it is that the swing bridge may be permanently disabled and prevented from opening to allow vessels upstream. We are not talking about tall ships—even the local ferry boat cannot pass under the swing bridge unless it is open. Any hope of reviving business or pleasure traffic movements upstream of the bridge will be lost. With the proposed industrial developments along the river banks upstream of the swing bridge, who knows how valuable a transport corridor may be lost as road traffic congestion worsens.
One of the Tyne's many famous sons, Jimmy Nail, recently wrote a song about the Tyne called "Big River". He sings of the river's industrial past and its decline, but also about the spirit of the people and the conviction that the river will again become a centre of activity for the community along its banks. That is already becoming apparent, as the work and plans of the local authorities and development corporation come to fruition.
One line in Jimmy Nail's song goes:
I was just a kid but it was mine—the coaly Tyne.
Tynesiders look on it as their river. They consider the work of the Port of Tyne Authority as work done on their behalf. That is apparently a naive view in the eyes of the

Government, because they propose that the authority and its publicly held assets should be sold to the highest bidder. Even the Government, in drafting the legislation that governs this process, at least paid lip service to the idea that the views of local people and organisations might be worth considering. They wrote into the legislation a requirement that views should be sought during a consultation period.
In the consultation process on the Port of Tyne Authority document and the Secretary of State's proposals, no fewer than 465 representations were made to the Secretary of State. Only four organisations favoured privatisation; all four were potential bidders for the port. Two of them have no previous history of interest in transport, let alone in ports, but a considerable interest in land and property.
My hon. Friends have given examples of representations made by businesses on the Tyne. The Tyne Port Users Association says:
May we reiterate that it is the view of the majority of our members that the port must remain under its current status and continue to be established as a regional asset.
We can see no advantages to force on the users of this port, a situation that is purely politically driven without any practical safeguards or protection as to its future.
Warrant Distribution Ltd. says:
We see no justification in commercial terms for privatising the Port at this time, and can only imagine that the Secretary of State's decision is based purely on political dogma.
Apart from the responses from companies such as that, hon. Members from the region—at least Labour Members—asked to meet the Secretary of State to put our objections to him face to face. He did not find time to meet us, but we were given the privilege of meeting a Minister who sits in the House of Lords. We found it profoundly objectionable that the Members of Parliament who attended that meeting, who are natives of Tyneside and the north, should be told by an unelected, hereditary peer that he knew better than the Tyne's elected representatives what was good for the area. Our objections are shared by the overwhelming majority of people on Tyneside.
I ask Conservative Members—I know that there are not a lot of them—what is the value of a consultation if so huge a majority is completely ignored? The situation contrasts sharply with the Government's change of mind about Dover, which is not to be given the benefits that the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) outlined. Only two objections were made to the Dover scheme: one from the Queen Mother and one from Vera Lynn. They were considered more important than the 460 individuals, organisations and elected representatives on Tyneside who opposed this privatisation.
The reasons why Tyneside objects so powerfully to privatisation are not emotional, but practical. Even by their own criteria, the Government have no case for this privatisation. All the major stated policy objectives have already been met. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) went through them and I shall not repeat them. Privatisation threatens trade on the river, capital development and the security of the livelihoods of hundreds of workers. Most of all, it is not wanted by the people. I hope that there are still at least some Conservative Members who believe that the views of local people are important enough to be taken into account.

Mr. Stephen Byers: It was informative and interesting to hear the Secretary of State speak in favour of the order. The bulk of his contribution had nothing to do with the forced privatisation of the Port of Tyne Authority. It was a Cook's tour of other ports in England and Scotland and an argument for the dogma that drives the Conservative party: the need to privatise everything. He would not address the specific proposals before the House, because he knows that there is no sensible or logical argument for compulsory privatisation of the authority. At risk is the success story of the authority over the past 10 years. It is being sacrificed on the political altar of privatisation.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) said, 15 or 20 years ago many hon. Members would not have been prepared to support the continuation of the Port of Tyne Authority. It was inward-looking, would not work in partnership with the local authorities or local industry and was slow at developing strategic parcels of land on the banks of the River Tyne. I remember some 17 years ago, as deputy leader of North Tyneside council, being responsible for making representations to the authority and arguing that it should make progress on developing the river. It was not supportive of those representations. However, the Port of Tyne Authority of 1996 is a different beast from the authority of the early 1980s. It is a body that reflects the needs and aspirations of the local community, that makes a profit and that has played a key part in assisting the region to overcome the difficulties that have been imposed on it by the Government's economic and social policies.
The Secretary of State failed to address several of the key issues that were raised in the representations of local people and communities and the authority. He failed to address properly employment protection or pensions. He failed to address the way in which profits could be stripped out of the port and used for different purposes, diverting money that is made by the port and is currently ploughed back to make it an even greater success story. That money may be used for whatever purpose the successor body determines; it is being taken away from the Tyne, which desperately needs regeneration and investment. It largely needs them because of the failure of the Conservative Government's policies.
The Government are doing what they always do with privatisations. Two principles motivate their privatisation policy: first, to pay off their friends who donate to Tory party funds; secondly, the triumph of political dogma over reason. The compulsory privatisation of the Port of Tyne Authority shows them in combination as the driving motives behind the order. If the Government win tonight and force compulsory privatisation of the Port of Tyne Authority, they will stand condemned not only by those who represent the Tyne but by our communities and by the northern region in general.

Ms Glenda Jackson: I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) and to my hon. Friends the Members for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) and for Wallsend (Mr. Byers), who have so passionately defended their constituencies.
When the Ports Bill was introduced in the House in 1991, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) said:
There are always grounds for change in the ports industry; the argument is about the nature of that change and the purpose of it."—[Official Report, 28 January 1991; Vol. 184, c. 683.]
That acid test holds true today. Will this enforced privatisation be a change for the better or, as the management, work force and customers claim, a change for the worse?
The Government claim that enforced privatisation brings three benefits. It reduces overmanning and increases productivity; increases competitiveness and investment in the ports and their infrastructure; and enables ports to extend the scope of their commercial activities, and make better use of surplus land and other assets available to them.
The aim is to achieve better productivity, more investment and a greater expansion of a port's commercial activities. Under the Government's criteria, they are hallmarks of a successful port facility. How does the port of Tyne square up to those tests?
Let us consider the first test of overmanning and productivity. In 1988, the number of workers employed by the port of Tyne exceeded 500; today, that figure is just over 200. In 1988, the payroll costs of the port stood at £7 million annually; but, over the past six years, those costs have fallen by more than 20 per cent. No one in the Labour party takes any pleasure from those figures. Only a fool would rejoice in job losses of that scale, but we appreciate the competitive nature of the ports industry and the requirement of the port of Tyne management to keep their cost base to a minimum. They have done that. They have drastically reduced labour costs and significantly increased productivity without the heavy hand of enforced privatisation. The efficiencies that the Government define as indicative of a successful port have already been achieved by the port of Tyne.
The Government's second benchmark is the achievement of greater competition and investment. How has the port of Tyne, starved of the perceived benefits of privatisation, performed in that regard? As the Secretary of State said, in the first two years following privatisation, the five privatised trust ports increased their pre-tax surplus by an average of 97 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman attempted to dismiss the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) that, over the same period, the port of Tyne had increased its pre-tax surplus by 172 per cent. The port has also embarked upon a capital investment programme worth more than £20 million. Does that programme expose the port as an enterprise failing to develop its full potential? Of course not. It exposes it as an enterprise that is growing and thriving, and the last thing that any such enterprise requires is interference from the Government.
The port of Tyne has already met two of the Government's criteria for a successful port facility. The third one is that a port should stimulate the development of land surplus to its requirements. In 1990, more than 100 hectares of the port's land around the Albert Edward dock was vacant. Today, just 23 hectares of it remain vacant, but they are reserved for operational and port-related use. The number of tenanted areas has


increased by 72 per cent. over the same period. The remaining port land no longer required for port purposes is being developed as the Royal Quays project. That project will include the development of residential housing, a large public park and a vast expansion of leisure and shopping facilities. That project should be well known to the Secretary of State, because, when he was a Housing Minister, he had the honour of launching work on it.
The port of Tyne has achieved the efficiency gains sought by the Government. It has earned profits and sustained an investment programme greater than those of the privatised trust ports. It has a development and diversification programme that enjoys the personal stamp of approval of the Secretary of State. Why, then, do the Government insist on placing all that at risk by forcing through the unwanted privatisation? Will enforced privatisation represent a good deal for the taxpayer?
In 1992, the port of Medway was sold for £29 million, of which £13 million was returned to the taxpayer. Eighteen months later, it was resold for £103 million, representing a loss to the taxpayer of £90 million on the total sale, or £50 million based on the Government's levy formulae. In addition, of the ?169 million owed to the Government after the sale of all five trust ports, just £54 million had been recovered by March 1992. In March 1993, by the time the Government caught up with the remaining £114 million that they were owed, the loss of interest amounted to a further loss to the taxpayer of £4.5 million. We can safely discount benefit to the taxpayer as a reason for proceeding with the privatisation of the port of Tyne.
When the Ports Bill was introduced, the then Secretary of State, the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), placed great importance on the consultation process. He said:
it would not automatically follow that other ports falling within the category would be privatised. That would depend on the response of the port and of other local interests." —[Official Report, 28 January 1991; Vol. 184, c. 675.]
Why is the current Secretary of State not showing the same regard for the port and its users? According to his Department's list of representations, 307 were received, of which 292 were opposed to privatisation along the lines currently proposed. The Port of Tyne Authority has received a further 330 representations, of which 315 were opposed to the Government's privatisation.
Several hon. Members have referred to the letter from Mr. K. Mori, the senior managing director of Mitsui OSK Lines, in which he referred to his concerns. He values his contacts with the port of Tyne so much that his company has named one of its new container vessels Tyne.
Are the Government truly prepared to put the understanding, trust and levels of inward investment referred to in Mr. Mori's letter at risk because of their ideological dogma? Despite the arguments put by the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), that is what the privatisation is all about. It is not about making the port of Tyne more efficient, more profitable or more commercially diverse. It is not about providing a good

deal for the taxpayer. It has nothing do with reflecting the needs of the port's management, work force or customers.
The privatisation proposal is simply the Government's desperate attempt to shore up their bankrupt principle that privatisation is not just the best option, but the only one. The Government do not care how many jobs are lost, how much investment is put at risk and how many successful enterprises will be forced to the wall in the process.
When hon. Members come to vote on the motion, they must ask themselves whether they truly want to place the success of the port of Tyne at risk for nothing more than ideological dogma.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John Bowis): First, I should like to thank everyone who has taken part in the debate, in particular the Opposition spokeswoman, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson). The last time we met across the Dispatch Box, I was concerned about the time taken up in the debate. Today, I congratulate her on doing a "Patrick Moore", given the speed with which she delivered her speech. We can now get on with the rest of the debate, having had that whirr of tirade and ideological flourish from the hon. Lady.
This has been a useful and revealing debate. We have seen ideology flow back through the window of the parliamentary Labour party as well as heard genuine concern expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State went out of his way to answer those concerns, and I shall try to do the same.
I should like to respond to the points made by the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland)—I was tempted to call him the hon. Member for swing bridge. I believe that he is confused on the swing bridge proposal. The proposal to remove the duty to maintain and repair the machinery of the open moving platform on the swing bridge came from the Port of Tyne Authority. He can rest assured that it is not part of our proposal, and will not be a consequence of the privatisation.
I always listen to the right hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) with great respect and interest. He raised a number of points based on his knowledge of the area, and expressed particular concern about the assets of the port. There is no evidence of asset stripping at the ports.

Ms Glenda Jackson: Come on.

Mr. Bowis: Perhaps the hon. Lady would like to provide any evidence she has of such asset stripping. Evidence suggests the contrary: in each case, the new regime has led to the development and improvement of facilities. My right hon. Friend was able to quote from newspapers and reports that highlight that fact. I repeat: any gain on land disposed of during the first 10 years after privatisation, whether by way of sale or long lease, will be subject to a clawback levy, which will be payable on a sliding scale. It will be set at 25 per cent. for the first five years, 20 per cent. for the sixth and seventh years and 10 per cent. for the eighth to 10th years.
The right hon. Member for Jarrow also asked what was the point of representation. The point is that the Government listen. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman listened carefully to what my right hon. Friend said, so he will he aware of the evidence that my right hon. Friend took on board views expressed in those representations. He made specific pledges in terms of the employment and pension interests of the work force at the port. In that regard, he has offered to listen to representations on those matters. He also acknowledged that he did not accept certain other representations and gave the reasons why they were not relevant—either they were unnecessary, because of previous legislation, or they would have damaged the future health of the port.
The hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) made three main points. He, too, talked about consultation and, like other hon. Members, balanced the numbers of representations received. I have to tell him that the overall number of letters and representations was small, and I hope he will not be too disappointed to learn that 129 came in a standard form that had clearly been prepared and supplied by the authority itself. He may want to know how I can be so sure of that—it was because so many of them came in a Port of Tyne Authority envelope. There was evidence of the authority's view and we looked carefully at that view and at the others that were expressed.
The hon. Gentleman expressed concern about the uncertainty, to which my response is, "Fine—so let's get on with it." The sooner the order has been passed and we can move to the next step, consulting everyone as we go, the sooner we can end that uncertainty.
The hon. Gentleman said that this privatisation was being done for the sake of privatisation, but that is not true. It is being done for the sake of the port of Tyne, because we believe that it can be managed even better in the private sector.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) for his rigorous analysis. He looked with a questioning eye at the whole proposal and came down in its favour. He pointed out that the port of Tyne is no longer in the list of top ports and showed that, although Nissan and other inward investment projects have shown the potential in the area, it needs a new boost.
My hon. Friend confirmed that employees are well protected by legislation and made an especially important point about employee share ownership. That is one of the great benefits of the proposal, because without shares there can be no employee share ownership. He rightly highlighted that as a benefit to those working in the port. He also mentioned the disposal of operational land. That cannot, of course, be disposed of without the approval of the planning authority.
My hon. Friend referred to fair charges and the right of appeal to the Secretary of State, and pointed out that that right has not been exercised in respect of those ports that have been privatised so far. That is an encouraging message and my hon. Friend's analysis was fair.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) said, rightly, that we have heard it all before—we hear Opposition Members' shock horror and their ideological frisson and then everything turns out well. In a few years' time, they will turn around and say that they were never really against the plan—a few years after that, they will try to claim parentage as well.
All hon. Members on both sides of the House share a wish to see the port of Tyne flourish. We believe that that is most likely to occur if the port is in the private sector. That is no criticism of the port of Tyne's past or its recent record—it is simply a fact. The port can do better, it will do better and, with this order, we will make it happen sooner.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 234, Noes 222.

division No. 27]
[5.33 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Alexander, Richard
Day, Stephen


Alison, Michael (Selby)
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Devlin, Tim


Amess, David
Dicks, Terry


Arbuthnot, James
Dorrell, Stephen


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Ashby, David
Dover, Den


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Dykes, Hugh


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'ld)


Baker, Kenneth (Mole V)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)


Batiste, Spencer
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Bellingham, Henry
Evennett, David


Beresford, Sir Paul
Faber, David


Biffen, John
Fabricant, Michael


Body, Sir Richard
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Booth, Hartley
Fishbum, Dudley


Boswell, Tim
Forman, Nigel


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Forth, Eric


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Bowis, John
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Boyson, Sir Rhodes
French, Douglas


Brandreth, Gyles
Fry, Sir Peter


Brazier, Julian
Gale, Roger


Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)
Gallie, Phil


Browning, Mrs Angela
Gardiner, Sir George


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Gamier, Edward


Bums, Simon
Gill, Christopher


Burt, Alistair
Goodlad, Alastair


Butler, Peter
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Butterfill, John
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)
Grant, Sir Anthony (SW Cambs)


Carrington, Matthew
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Carttiss, Michael
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Cash, William
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Channon, Paul
Gummer, John


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Hague, William


Clappison, James
Hamilton, Sir Archibald


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hanley, Jeremy


Colvin, Michael
Hannam, Sir John


Congdon, David
Hargreaves, Andrew


Conway, Derek
Haselhurst, Sir Alan


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)
Hawkins, Nick


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hawksley, Warren


Cope, Sir John
Hayes, Jerry


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Heald, Oliver


Couchman, James
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Cran, James
Hendry, Charles


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Heseltine, Michael


Curry, David
Hicks, Sir Robert


Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)
Higgins, Sir Terence






Hogg, Douglas (Grantham)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Horam, John
Robathan, Andrew


Hordem, Sir Peter
Roberts, Sir Wyn


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)
Rowe, Andrew


Hunter, Andrew
Rumbold, Dame Angela


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Sackville, Tom


Jessel, Toby
Sainsbury, Sir Timothy


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Shaw, David (Dover)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Shephard, Mrs Gillian


Jones, Robert B (W Herts)
Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)


Jopling, Michael
Shersby, Sir Michael


Key, Robert
Sims, Sir Roger


King, Tom
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Kirkhope, Timothy
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Knapman, Roger
Soames, Nicholas


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Speed, Sir Keith


Kynoch, George
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)


Lamont, Norman
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)


Lang, Ian
Spink, Dr Robert


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Spring, Richard


Legg, Barry
Sproat, lain


Leigh, Edward
Stanley, Sir John


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Steen, Anthony


Lidington, David
Stephen, Michael


Lilley, Peter
Stem, Michael


Lloyd, Sir Peter (Fareham)
Stewart, Allan


Lord, Michael
Streeter, Gary


Luff, Peter
Sumberg, David


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Sweeney, Walter


MacGregor, John
Sykes, John


MacKay, Andrew
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Maclean, David
Taylor, Sir Teddy


McLoughlin, Patrick
Temple-Morris, Peter


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Thomason, Roy


Madel, Sir David
Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)


Major, John
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Malone, Gerald
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Mans, Keith
Trend, Michael


Marlow, Tony
Trotter, Neville


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Viggers, Peter


Merchant, Piers
Waldegrave, William


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Walden, George


Moate, Sir Roger
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Ward, John


Nelson, Anthony
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Waterson, Nigel


Newton, Tony
Watts, John


Nicholls, Patrick
Wells, Bowen


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Whitney, Ray


Norris, Steve
Whittingdale, John


Oppenheim, Phillip
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Ottaway, Richard
Willetts, David


Page, Richard
Wilshire, David


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Pawsey, James
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesf'ld)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wolfson, Mark


Porter, David
Yeo, Tim


Portillo, Michael
Young, Sir George


Rathbone, Tim



Renton, Tim
Tellers for the Ayes:


Richards, Rod
Mr. Timothy Wood and


Riddick, Graham
Mr. Sebastian Coe.




NOES


Anger, Nick
Barron, Kevin


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Battle, John


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Bayley, Hugh


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Beith, A J


Ashton, Joseph
Bell, Stuart


Austin-Walker, John
Benn, Tony


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Bennett, Andrew F


Barnes, Harry
Benton, Joe



Bermingham, Gerald
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Berry, Roger
Hoey, Miss Kate


Betts, Clive
Hoon, Geoffrey


Blunkett, David
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Boateng, Paul
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Bradley, Keith
Hoyle, Doug


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Hughes, Robert (Ab'd'n N)


Burden, Richard
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Byers, Stephen
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Callaghan, Jim
Hutton, John


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Illsley, Eric


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)


Campbell-Savours, D N
Jamieson, David


Canavan, Dennis
Jenkins, Brian D (SE Staffs)


Cann, Jamie
Jones, Barry (Alyn & D'side)


Carlile, Alex (Montgomery)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Clapham, Michael
Jones, Dr L (B'ham Selly Oak)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd SW)


Clelland, David
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Jowell, Ms Tessa


Cohen, Harry
Kaufman, Gerald


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Keen, Alan


Corbyn, Jeremy
Kennedy, Charles (Ross C & S)


Corston, Ms Jean
Kennedy, Mrs Jane (Broadgreen)


Cousins, Jim
Khabra, Piara S


Cox, Tom
Kilfoyle, Peter


Cummings, John
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Lewis, Terry


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try SE)
Litherland, Robert


Dafis, Cynog
Livingstone, Ken


Dalyell, Tam
Lloyd, Tony (Stretf'd)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C)
Llwyd, Elfyn


Davies, Chris (Littleborough)
Loyden, Eddie


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Lynne, Ms Liz


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
McAllion, John


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
McKelvey, William


Denham, John
Mackinlay, Andrew


Dixon, Don
McLeish, Henry


Dobson, Frank
Maclennan, Robert


Dowd, Jim
McNamara, Kevin


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
MacShane, Denis


Eagle, Ms Angela
McWilliam, John


Eastham, Ken
Madden, Max


Etherington, Bill
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Faulds, Andrew
Mandelson, Peter


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Marek, Dr John


Flynn, Paul
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Foster, Derek
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Fraser, John
Martin, Michael J (Springbum)


Fyfe, Mrs Maria
Martlew, Eric


Gapes, Mike
Meacher, Michael


Garrett, John
Meale, Alan


Gerrard, Neil
Michael, Alun


Gilbert, Dr John
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Godman, Dr Norman A
Milburn, Alan


Godsiff, Roger
Miller, Andrew


Golding, Mrs Llin
Morgan, Rhodri


Gordon, Ms Mildred
Morley, Elliot


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Morris, Alfred (Wy'nshawe)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Grocott, Bruce
Mudie, George


Gunnell, John
Mullin, Chris


Hain, Peter
Murphy, Paul


Hall, Mike
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Hanson, David
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hardy, Peter
O'Hara, Edward


Harman, Ms Harriet
Olner, Bill


Harvey, Nick
Orme, Stanley


Hattersley, Roy
Pickthall, Colin


Heppell, John
Pike, Peter L


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Powell, Sir Raymond (Ogmore)


Hinchliffe, David
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)






Prescott, John
Steinberg, Gerry


Primarolo, Ms Dawn
Stevenson, George


Purchase, Ken
Stott, Roger


Quin, Ms Joyce
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Radice, Giles
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Randall, Stuart
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Raynsford, Nick
Thumham, Peter


Rendel, David
Timms, Stephen


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Tipping, Paddy


Rogers, Allan
Touhig, Don


Rooker, Jeff
Turner, Dennis


Ross, William (E Lond'y)
Tyler, Paul


Rowlands, Ted
Walker, Sir Harold


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Wallace, James


Sedgemore, Brian
Walley, Ms Joan


Sheerman, Barry
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Shore, Peter
Wareing, Robert N


Short, Ms Clare
Wicks, Malcolm


Simpson, Alan
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Skinner, Dennis
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Winnick, David


Smith, Chris (Islington S)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Worthington, Tony


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Wright, Dr Tony


Snape, Peter
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Soley, Clive



Spearing, Nigel
Tellers for the Noes:


Spellar, John
Mr. Greg Pope and


Steel, Sir David
Mrs. Bridget Prentice.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Port of Tyne Authority (Transfer of Undertaking) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 6th November, be approved.

Social Security

Mr. Henry McLeish: I beg to move,
That the Social Security (Disability Living Allowance and Claims and Payments) Amendment Regulations 1996 (S.1.. 1996. No. 1436), dated 4th June 1996, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th June in the last Session of Parliament, he revoked.
I oppose the regulations, and I hope that the whole House will support us in voting against them.
Unfortunately, this is another example of the Government trying to pass regulations after they have been implemented in the country. Equally important, it smacks of four characteristics of the Government.
First, the Government have a cavalier attitude to Parliament. They make and lay orders, but proceed to implement them without any Member—

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Mr. McLeish: Not at this stage.

Mr. Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McLeish: Not at this stage.

Mr. Hughes: rose—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. McLeish: On that cavalier attitude—

Mr. Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to mislead the House about what went on between the parties when, as everyone knows, Labour asked for the debate to be delayed? Thai is why the change was introduced before the debate took place.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Luckily, the Chair does not know any of these things.

Mr. McLeish: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I can understand Conservative Members' excitement.
The Government's cavalier attitude to the House means that orders are made and laid and six months later we have a debate on the regulations. That is a disgrace and a scandal.
The second characteristic is the Government's lack of courtesy towards, and lack of consideration of, voluntary organisations. Through the Social Security Advisory Committee those organisations are asked to make representations, but when they do, the Government ignore the volume of representations that have been made.
Thirdly, the Government show contempt for the Social Security Advisory Committee. It is charged with seriously considering some of the most important regulations that pass through the House. The committee does its job well, but in the case of the regulations before us —not for the first time —the Government have refused to acknowledge its wisdom and judgment.
Finally, we have the ultimate contempt—contempt for the people at the sharp end of the changes that have been made, who are some of the most vulnerable individuals in this country.
In my opinion, those are the characteristics of a Government who have been here too long and who now see only a process ahead instead of individuals who will be affected by the regulations.
It is important to place on the record the views that were expressed by many of the voluntary organisations. Of necessity, the debate will be brief, but that is due only to the procedures of the House. This is a vital matter. Under the former rules, disability living allowance was generally not affected by a hospital stay. On 31 July 1996, regulations came into force to the effect that the mobility component of the allowance generally ceases after a person has spent four weeks as an in-patient—12 weeks in the case of a child. Of course, those regulations are being debated on 5 December 1996.
We are discussing the mobility component of the disability living allowance. I want to distinguish that from the other part—the care component.
It is worth noting the process which led to today's debate. In January this year the Secretary of State sought the views of the Social Security Advisory Committee regarding the draft regulations. On 15 January, the SSAC invited representations from voluntary organisations, and 189 organisations and individuals responded. That information was imparted to the Secretary of State on 12 March, the orders were made on 7 June and they came into force on 13 July.
It is remarkable that the overwhelming majority of respondents did not like the Government's proposals and advanced a reasoned case on their behalf. It appears that the care in the community Scottish working group comprising Age Concern and many different councils—from the Scottish Council for Spastics to single parents and the Scottish National Federation for the Welfare of the Blind—was not consulted. I ask the Minister to explain today why a part of the United Kingdom much beloved by the Conservatives was simply ignored in the consultation process.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: For some strange reason, the Department of Social Security also excluded the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland from the consultation process. Its director, Dr. Dyer, has pointed out to every Scots Member of Parliament that, by way of the Crosby report mechanisms, that money is spent constructively and imaginatively in the overwhelming majority of hospitals in Scotland caring for those with mental health problems.

Mr. McLeish: My hon. Friend, who takes an active interest in these matters, makes an excellent point. I hope that the Minister will respond to it, as it reinforces our belief that the measures are ill conceived, have been rushed through and will not assist those organisations which represent the vulnerable. Organisations such as Mencap and MIND—the National Association for Mental Health—are at the front line in defending the interests of vulnerable people. I could mention more such organisations, but time does not permit.
Sadly, the Government have failed to justify the regulations—and probably the nation is not surprised by their attitude. However, I hope that the Minister will try to justify their introduction today. I remind him of the comments of the Secretary of State for Social Security in his 1995 statement on the uprating of benefits. He said:
It cannot be right to pay people who are unable to use the benefit for the purpose intended and who are already having most of their needs met by the taxpayer.
That proposition has been completely and utterly demolished by every organisation that responded to the consultation.
The Secretary of State then moved to the real reason for the measures, when he said:
We believe the move is justified in ensuring that taxpayers' money goes to those best placed to benefit from it.
That same kind of targeting has led to a 40 per cent. lack of take-up of benefit—1 million British pensioners who are entitled to income support do not receive it. That is the sort of targeting that the Secretary of State is happy to pursue. The SSAC decided that it could not recommend proceeding with the proposals—that in itself is a damning indictment—and urged the Government to consider several points if they decided to go ahead. However, the Government accepted only one—that a linking rule should be introduced in determining the 12-month period for transitional protection.
Why are the regulations so objectionable? First, false assumptions have been made about the lack of mobility needs of long-stay patients and the meeting of those needs by the national health service. The fact-finding exercise carried out by the DSS was fundamentally flawed as it did not consult patients or those directly responsible for their day-to-day care. Secondly, long-stay patients in particular are often in hospitals in isolated areas and the mobility component can be used to enable them to make and receive visits. That is even more important when young children are involved.
Thirdly, there is evidence that in many cases the mobility component is used imaginatively and constructively to enhance the quality of life of long-stay patients. Unspent balances are evidence of poor organisation and provision rather than a lack of mobility need.
Fourthly, patients in NHS homes and hospitals will be worse off than those in homes provided by other bodies, even though care provision and needs may be similar. The proposals run counter to the efforts to transfer care from a hospital to a community base. That is an important consideration if we want community care to work.
The transitional protection does not include people who have been in hospital for less than a year and who will lose benefit at four weeks. Furthermore, the exclusion of those in special hospitals, secure units and those detained in low-security hospitals effectively puts them in the same position as convicted prisoners rather than patients. That is inexcusable—but it is a reflection of the Government's mindset.
The nation has spoken through its voluntary organisations to reject the proposal. The Social Security Advisory Committee has listened to their views and come to the same conclusion. I believe that the Opposition parties oppose the regulations, so why do the Conservatives continue to advocate the changes? Is the Minister aware that they are bad regulations? Is he aware


that the lives of vulnerable people will be made worse by a decision taken behind closed doors which rejected other comments?
Even at this late stage—six months after implementing the regulations—the Government must think again. Their record is littered with disability living allowance-type measures. No thought has been given to the implications. At the end of the day, it is not Members of Parliament or Ministers who will have to pick up the pieces, pay the costs or suffer the problems. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) makes idle, mindless interruptions from a sedentary position. We are discussing an issue that may affect 45,000 people in the first year. The hon. Gentleman should repeat to his constituents at the sharp end of Government policy the sort of thing that he says here.

Mr.Robert G. Hughes: Perhaps the difference between the hon. Gentleman and me is that I do just that. The hon. Gentleman simply makes promises without suggesting where the money will come from. That is dishonest.

Mr. McLeish: If Conservative Members read Hansard, they will see that no promises have been made. I have given a commitment to oppose the regulations today. In a short time from now we shall be voting against them—and rightly so.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Andrew Mitchell): I shall set out for the House the reasons why we have taken the steps that we are debating today. This is undoubtedly a sensitive and difficult area and it is clear that some hon. Members have concerns. There are serious issues involved, and I shall deal with them by examining the detailed reasoning behind the decision. I hope to persuade the House that our decision, although difficult, is right and fair.
I shall pick up two points from the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish). First, he referred to the Government's cavalier treatment of the House of Commons. I must take him to task on that point. As he knows, the regulations are subject to the negative procedure: they do not need the approval of the House unless someone prays against them, as occurred today. They are law until they are annulled. [Interruption.] I assure the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) that the timing of the debate was agreed through the usual channels. He should know that we intended to discuss the regulations before the end of the Session, in July. However, following agreement through the usual channels, the debate was deferred until today. I make it very clear that there is no question of any cavalier treatment of the House.

Mr. Alan Howarth: The Minister observes correctly that it was originally expected to debate and decide the measure in the House at the end of July. Will he therefore explain why on 15 June the Department circulated leaflets—presumably to 1 million claimants of the mobility component—informing them

that there would be changes in the law which might affect their disability living allowance? Why do the Government take Parliament's assent for granted?

Mr. Mitchell: As the hon. Gentleman knows, that matter was raised by the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant). At this remove I cannot remember precisely what the point was, but I assure him that the matter was dealt with at the time. We had no intention of playing fast and loose with the law. I have explained that there is no question of any cavalier treatment of the House because the decision was made through the usual channels—which include the Labour party.

Dr. Godman: Why was the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland excluded from the consultation process in 1995?

Mr. Mitchell: When we raised that matter with the Department of Health, we also raised it with the two territorial Departments, and it was discussed prior to the announcement made in 1995. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make some progress, I shall come to the points that he made about Scotland.
The hon. Member for Fife, Central made an allegation about cavalier treatment of the Social Security Advisory Committee. I can assure him that there is no question of that having taken place. We gave the SSAC's recommendations serious consideration. We responded in detail in Cm 3233, which was laid at the same time as the regulations. I recommend that the hon. Gentleman looks at that paper, because it sets out in great detail our comments about the views of the SSAC. It also, as he mentioned, accepted the recommendation to include linking periods for people afforded protection. I assure him that there was no question of any cavalier treatment of the SSAC.
The hon. Gentleman's third allegation—that this was an attack on a very vulnerable group—does not bear scrutiny. I will, if I may, take the House through the Government's thinking on the proposal.
In 1992, the Government introduced disability living allowance, which replaced and extended the help formerly available through attendance and mobility allowances. We carried forward existing entitlements and introduced two new lower rates of benefit, one for care and one for mobility. I am sure that the House will recognise and praise the fine record that we have on helping sick and disabled people. The figures make that clear.
Spending on benefits for sick and disabled people has quadrupled in real terms since 1979 from £5 billion to £22 billion. They form the second largest component in the entire social security budget, and spending is budgeted to continue rising. Planned spending on disability living allowance alone in 1995–96 is at £3.7 billion. Nearly 3 million people now get help with care and mobility needs, compared with just 420,000 in 1979. That is a sixfold increase in the number of people we are able to help and a record of which any Government can be justly proud.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Organisations which represent people with disabilities such as the Action Group in Edinburgh, the patients council of the Royal Edinburgh hospital, and Enable, are saying—


as Hugh Stewart, the depute director says in his letter, of which the Minister has a copy—that very vulnerable people who have been helped while in hospital to be supported by parents if they are mentally handicapped or to support themselves if they are mentally ill, have been helped by the mobility allowance component, allowing them to get out of hospital and to lead normal lives in an environment which in itself will be artificial. Had the Minister considered that, listened to those groups and made an exception, he would have had the agreement of the whole House, but the despicable decision to try to squeeze the budget and penalise those people means that he is alone with a few of his hon. Friends in pushing this measure through the House.

Mr. Mitchell: It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman did not acknowledge what I was saying when he intervened. There has been a colossal increase in support for sick and disabled people. That was the point that I was making. I will deal with the other points that he made in a moment.
The figures for DLA are remarkable, and I should like to set them out for the House. At the time of the last general election, in 1992, we spent £2 billion on DLA. In 1993–94, that figure rose to £2.8 billion—an increase of just under £1 billion in that year alone. Last year, it increased again to £3.1 billion—up a further £350 million. This year the estimated outturn is £3.7 billion—a further rise of just over £550 million. Next year, planned spending is £4.4 billion—an increase of nearly £700 million. By 1998–99, DLA is expected to cost £5.5 billion. By any yardstick, the extra money that we are spending on DLA each year is immense.
No one should be in any doubt. This is not principally about saving money. We are prepared to spend money to assist disabled people where justified.
Expenditure is rising and on such a scale that it should be crystal clear to every hon. Member that without effective targeting we shall not as a country be able to continue affording DLA. My first point, therefore, is that this is about targeting DLA mobility and not about cutting disability benefits. But targeting effective support where it is most needed means taking a long, hard look at our priorities, across all benefits, and sometimes making difficult decisions. It is clearly unfair to exclude disability benefit from sensible scrutiny. We need to examine all aspects of current provision to be certain that decisions made about benefit entitlement and payability are still sustainable in the current financial climate.
As the House will appreciate, DLA is intended to help with the extra costs associated with disability. A re-examination of the arrangements by which payment of the DLA mobility component was unaffected by periods in hospital persuaded us that the extra costs associated with a disabling condition do change while a person is in national health service accommodation. I should like to say a little about our conclusions on that.
DLA forms an integral part of a disabled person's income. They are free to spend it as they choose. That seems to me to be a perfectly proper and reasonable state of affairs when someone is living in the community. We can all think of the extra costs that might be associated with limited mobility—for example, higher heating bills, higher laundry bills, paying someone else to do the

shopping—but the same considerations do not apply while someone is in national health service accommodation. Patients in national health service accommodation have most of their needs met free of charge. Only a small proportion of patients receive DLA mobility component, but hospitals make no distinction between those who do and those who do not when identifying basic mobility needs and seeking to meet them.
As hon. Members know, it is a fundamental duty of the national health service that it meets the basic mobility needs of people in its care. In addition, I can tell the House that NHS trusts will take account of these changes and set their priorities accordingly.
I find it very hard to accept that mobility needs continue unchanged on admission to hospital, and it is certainly not clear what additional costs disabled patients have to bear. Admission to hospital already affects most social security benefits, and the DLA care component has always been withdrawn after four weeks in hospital. This change has brought payment of the DLA mobility component into line with that.
I wish to reassure the House that these changes do not affect a person's underlying entitlement to the DLA mobility component. When we are advised that a person has been discharged, DLA payments will automatically resume at the full rate of entitlement. The changes affect the payment arrangements of DLA that suspend benefit after four weeks in hospital, or after 12 weeks in the case of children receiving DLA. They reinstate the benefit once the person has been discharged and they provide special arrangements where a patient is temporarily discharged from hospital anticipating a return within 28 days, when payments will be calculated at the daily rate of a person's full entitlement for each full day out of hospital.
Mencap and others have criticised the proposals as confusing. I shall try to clear up that confusion. Simply put, those affected by the changes are people who, for benefit purposes, are treated as hospital in-patients. The key consideration is whether the national health service is responsible for maintaining the benefit recipient free of charge wherever they are accommodated. I make it clear to the House that that is nothing new. Exactly the same factors apply to other social security benefits.
In making the changes, however, we have sought to be sensitive to the needs of existing long-term hospital patients and people who choose to take part in the Motability scheme, by incorporating certain protections from the change. The protection acknowledges that existing long-term patients have reasonable expectations that benefit payments will continue, and that long-term patients have certain costs associated with restricted mobility, although basic needs are fully met by the national health service, but that they spend only a part of their benefit on those costs.
The protection arrangements also recognise that there is a unique relationship between the Motability scheme and payment of mobility benefits, and that withdrawal of the mobility component automatically terminates a Motability agreement. Unlike people with private agreements, Motability customers have no scope to make other arrangements to retain their vehicle should their benefit be withdrawn. We believe that the vast majority of people using the Motability scheme do so because they would be unlikely to be able to finance a vehicle or wheelchair any other way.
The overall impact of these changes is being carefully monitored. I can advise the House that, on their introduction, some 7,000 people in hospital were affected by the withdrawal of the DLA mobility component, and around 16,000 existing long-stay patients have benefited from the protection arrangements.

Sir John Hannam: Does my hon. Friend recall that in July I discussed with him and with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the hardship cases which may arise as a result of the new Motability arrangements? My right hon. Friend agreed to write to the chairman of Motability to ask him to show understanding and flexibility in the arrangements so as to help such hardship cases.

Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend is right—I remember those discussions. As my hon. Friend knows, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has undertaken to keep the matter under review, and to discuss any difficulties with the chairman of Motability.
We anticipate that in any one year 5,000 people with Motability agreements will be protected. I am pleased to tell the House that Motability has advised me that there has been virtually no adverse impact on its customers since the changes were implemented. To answer my hon. Friend's specific point, in only three cases has there been a problem due to a breakdown in communication.

Mr. David Lidington: My hon. Friend may recall that we exchanged correspondence about the difficulties experienced by people who are not part of a Motability scheme, but who have made private arrangements for the use of a car or wheelchair. Did his Department undertake research into the means of people with private arrangements when it was decided that they should be treated differently from those who are party to Motability agreements?

Mr. Mitchell: Yes, we carefully considered that precise point, which my hon. Friend has raised with me before on behalf of a constituent. For the reasons that I have given, the changes relate to the direct link with Motability and do not apply to private arrangements.

Mr. Roger Gale: I appreciate that interventions are tiresome, but I assume that my hon. Friend wants us in the Lobby with him tonight. With regard to the private purchase of a vehicle through the mobility allowance, will my hon. Friend assure me and my constituents that the change will not be retrospective? He referred to people who have already entered into contracts, and I am sure that he shares my abhorrence of retrospective legislation. I fully appreciate that people may make different arrangements in the future, but does the change apply to people who have already entered into contracts?

Mr. Mitchell: I fully understand my hon. Friend's point. I assure him that current Motability agreements are protected.
In the current financial climate, we have to question the use of a social security benefit to enhance provision already made from public funds. Indeed, measures relating to the vast majority of benefits specifically exclude anything that smacks of double provision.
In closing, let me make it clear to the House that DLA is one of the fastest growing benefits in the social security system. The figures are on the record and show more eloquently than any words the full extent of our commitment. Spending on DLA alone has increased again this year, by £550 million. Following my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor's Budget, it is set to rise next year by a further £670 million. That takes us to more than £4.25 billion.
That level of extra support and help—which, as the House knows, is not means-tested—can be sustained only if we are clear-sighted about who should receive it. The Government have taken this difficult but fair decision, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State deserves credit for that. Because we have made such decisions, the growth in social security expenditure is now contained, and is less than the rate of growth in the economy as a whole. If we do not take tough decisions, we shall end up in the same position as France and Germany, where strikes and riots accompany welfare reforms, precisely because tough and necessary decisions were not taken at an earlier stage.
The Government are proud of the help that we are giving to 1.5 million people through the mobility component of disability living allowance. The changes have affected about 14,000 people, half of whom have received a degree of protection. I commend them to the House.

Mr. Alfred Morris: It's nothing short of a scandal that this major reversal of policy should have taken effect without the opportunity for Parliament to debate these amending regulations: it's a betrayal of trust.
They are not my words. They are quoted from a statement made to Ministers last summer by Lord Rix, whose long and distinguished services to disabled people, more especially those with severe learning difficulties, have won him the abiding respect of both sides of both Houses of Parliament.
As this House knows, I was the architect of the mobility allowance, from which the mobility component of the disability living allowance derives, when I became the first Minister for disabled people in 1974. That is my credential for intervening briefly in this debate. I do so with deep misgivings about the effect of the regulations in hampering the rehabilitative process, not least in the case of newly disabled people in special hospital units, and damaging the quality of life of patients more generally.
I ask anyone who wants to vote tonight on the merits of these regulations to reflect, before they do so, on their effects on the lives of two young disabled people. The first is a severely disabled girl in her teens, who lives with three other young people in a bungalow on a main road in an area south of London. She has never lived in a hospital. The mobility component of her DLA—which in her own word has now been "slashed"—enabled her mother to visit her and take her home every week, and the staff to take her on outings not covered by the funding of her residential home. But it so happens that the home is funded by the NHS, so she is one of the losers.
Only a few miles away a young woman, also severely disabled and in an almost identical home, but one funded by the local social services authority, still keeps her


mobility money in full. How can such sharply contrasting treatment be defended? Merely to cite the two cases is to condemn the regulations, and I most strongly urge the Minister to stop piling handicap on handicap for extremely vulnerable youngsters solely because they are in accommodation funded by the NHS.
It is against natural justice for the two cases to be treated so differently, and it is demeaning of this House for the Government to seek, by the use of a three-line Whip, to force these regulations through tonight. For many long-term patients in NHS accommodation, the mobility component of the DLA, creatively used as I intended it to be when legislating for the mobility allowance 20 years ago, has been the only means of enhancing their mobility. My fear now, like that of the Disablement Income Group, is that, without recourse to the full mobility component, their quality of life will suffer, that they will have less contact with the outside world and become more isolated. How can anyone in this House possibly justify the imposition of a three-line Whip to achieve that result?
Ministers never tire of saying that they have improved the incomes of disabled people. They pat themselves on the back with a frequency that could endanger their health. But the overall impression they seek to create is phoney. It leaves out of account some huge cuts in spending on disability benefits, of which recent parliamentary questions have established the facts.
Take the example of a question that I tabled about the cost to disabled people of breaking the link I forged in 1975 between invalidity benefit and increases in average earnings. What the Minister's reply showed on 11 November—at column 90 of Hansard—was that, in the last year for which figures are available, 1994–95, disabled people lost over £1 billion in consequence of that one retrograde decision. The reply also showed that, since the decision to break the link first took effect in 1980, the cumulative loss to disabled people by 1995 was £5.99 billion. By now it must exceed £7 billion, which is more than three times the Government's total annual expenditure on the mobility component.
That figure was never volunteered to this House by Ministers. It had to be forced out of them by a parliamentary question, but they cannot be allowed to keep on throwing dust in people's eyes with selective information. These regulations are, in the view of all the organisations of and for disabled people, about cutting public expenditure, and not
a logical tidying-up of the benefits system
as Ministers so misleadingly claim.
Far from being logical, the reversal of policy these regulations seek to confirm is insane; and Parliament should say so.
Again, they are not my words. They, too, are from Lord Rix articulating, as he does so well, the depth of the concern of all the disability organisations to see these regulations rejected by this honourable House tonight.

Sir John Stanley: I do not have any difficulty with the theory advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Gelding—[Laughter.] —I apologise to my hon. Friend the Minister. His

constituency is, of course, Gedling. I also have no difficulty with the proposition that the Government should avoid double counting on any benefit. I fully endorse the policy that he enunciated, which is the concentration of benefit payments on those who most need them.
My concerns about the regulations stem, first, from the fact that the Government proceeded with them after a study of their likely impact, based on what appears to be a very limited sample of practitioners. In the Command Paper to which my hon. Friend the Minister referred, I was struck by the reference to the fact that only six national health service trusts were part of the Department's fact-finding exercise. That seems a limited amount of fact finding on such a sensitive and important issue.
I have conducted my own fact-finding study, as far as I can, in my constituency. I approached the four hospital trusts that cover my constituency—that represents a sample two thirds the size of that used by the Department—and the responses that I received are instructive. Two of the trusts are acute hospitals and two are in the non-acute sector.
Senior staff of the two acute NHS trusts—Kent and Sussex Weald NHS trust and Mid-Kent Healthcare trust—said that the regulations would not give them a problem in regard to the level of care for each patient. I got a different picture from the two non-acute trusts. The Weald of Kent Community NHS trust expressed concerns that a number of its patients, particularly those who had entered into long-term hire purchase or lease agreements for disabled people's cars—those commitments continue while a person is in hospital—would certainly be exposed as a result of the regulations and the withdrawal of the mobility component, unless they had a Motability agreement. There is great concern about that group of people, but my hon. Friend the Minister made light of it.
My most significant concerns were aroused when I spoke to the fourth trust—Maidstone Priority Care NHS trust—which has a number of long-term, severely disabled people in community care, including a number of quadriplegics. We discussed a unit that I know well in Brook street, Snodland, for extremely disabled young people.
I was struck by one sentence in the explanatory memorandum put out by the Department to justify the regulations. It features in appendix 3, paragraph 15 of Command Paper 3233, to which my hon. Friend the Minister referred, and states:
Patients do not use their DLA for mobility purposes but use the money to buy tobacco, cigarettes, sweets etc.
I most sincerely hope that that unqualified statement does not represent the general views of the Treasury Bench team, because it is not justified.
The severely handicapped people in the unit to which I referred regard that statement is complete bunkum. That severely disabled group of people use the mobility component to finance mobility helpers, who are critical as, almost without exception, all members of the group require one-to-one help every time they leave the unit. If they go anywhere by wheelchair along the pavement, or if they go to the local park or the shopping centre, they require one-to-one help, which means mobility helpers. If they go out in the minibus further afield, they still require such help.
The chief executive of the NHS trust confirmed, sadly, that as a result of the regulations significantly less money will be available to the trust to provide mobility helpers for severely disabled people. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take careful note of that consequence of the regulations. I do not suggest for a moment that that is the generality of the situation, but among some small, but exceptionally deserving and vulnerable groups, that will be the consequence. If my hon. Friend wants to visit Brook street in Snodland, I shall be available to be there with him at any time, so that he can see for himself the situation and the consequences. The Government would have been well advised to conduct a much wider fact-finding exercise, as the Social Security Advisory Committee recommended, before proceeding with the regulations.
On the detail of the regulations, first, I do not accept the logic that the cut-off date for the withdrawal of the mobility component should be the same as that for the care component. The two are inherently different. I accept that when a person goes into hospital, it can safely be assumed that the hospital will, from day one, be responsible for his care. I can certainly understand why it is right to withdraw the care component within four weeks of an adult going into hospital.
Surely the mobility component is different. People can go into hospital, but have continuing liabilities—in terms of both mobility requirements and liabilities—particularly if they have entered into lease or hire purchase arrangements to purchase a disabled car or an electric wheelchair.
I do not see the logic of having different cut-off dates for children and for adults. What is the sense of that in regard to the mobility component? Indeed, one could argue that the cut-off date should be later for adults than for children. I can see no reason why it is only four weeks for adults, but 12 for children. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will reflect that it would have been better to start with a common cut-off date of 12 weeks, if the Government intended to take that route.
Secondly, what is the relationship between the provisions of the regulations and the good scheme that the Government introduced to provide additional funding for electric-powered wheelchairs? That scheme commenced in April. As my hon. Friend the Minister is aware, under the scheme, which in west Kent will produce an extra £126,000 for the purchase of such wheelchairs in this financial year, it is possible for a severely disabled person to have the use of an NHS-provided electric wheelchair, or a voucher for the equivalent amount of money so that he or she can top up the amount.
If someone uses the voucher scheme to get an electric-powered wheelchair, surely that policy will run contrary to that set out in the regulations. If the person uses a voucher, he will incur additional liabilities for the extra costs of additional elements on his wheelchair, and presumably those will be continuing liabilities. The net effect of the regulations will be that, if such people find themselves in hospital, they will have continuing liabilities under the top-up arrangements, and then discover that they will no longer receive the mobility component on which they had relied before entering hospital.
I fully endorse what my hon. Friend the Minister said. The Government have an outstanding record on financial provision for the disabled, and they have an extremely

good record on producing forward-looking new legislation to provide additional legislative help to the disabled. Against that background, it would be regrettable if one of the final legislative measures for disabled people that the Government produced in this Parliament resulted in suffering for some the most vulnerable people in the disabled community. Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friend will review the detailed operation of the regulations extremely carefully, and, if necessary, amend them if it is found that they are not working satisfactorily.
I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that the absolute bottom line is that the disabled community —particularly its most vulnerable element —must not suffer because of the regulations.

Ms Liz Lynne: These regulations came into force on 1 August 1996 —four months ago. We were denied the chance then to debate them or to vote on them, although they are significant changes for a vast number of disabled people. Tonight we have the opportunity to vote against them, and I hope that hon. Members on both sides the House will consider doing so. The manner in which the regulations were introduced was disgraceful, and it was an absolute insult to disabled people.
It has been suggested that the regulations will affect those only with limited mobility, and that some people will be saving their allowances or spending them on other things. I can assure the House that organisations of and for disabled people say categorically that that is not the case. Even the Department of Social Security no longer feels that hospitals accumulating funds is a serious problem. In response to a parliamentary question from me, the Minister said:
Departmental Officials had discussions with a number of NHS trusts throughout Great Britain last summer. These suggest that this was a considerable problem in the past but is now rare." —[Official Report, 19 March 1996; Vol. 274, c. 182.]
Existing legislation could be used. Why are the Government not making use of it? The reason is that the Government are not enforcing the legislation as they thought that they would do. They are also ignoring the Social Security Advisory Committee, which stated in its report:
Our primary recommendation is that these proposals should not proceed in their present form. We regard the care component of disability living allowance as serving a totally different purpose from the mobility component. Whereas care needs are taken care of in hospital and costs do not continue, mobility needs, in general. do continue and the cost of personal transport remains.
The mobility component is essential for disabled people in long-term NHS accommodation —which is funded by the NHS —for their physical and mental well-being. The component helps individuals, particularly in community homes, to retain their independence, and it affects thousands of disabled people. It was a non-means-tested benefit, and it could be claimed during periods of work or periods of care.
Over the months, the Minister has argued that NHS trusts and general practitioner fundholders are providing necessary recuperation and rehabilitation, so the need should not be met by the DSS. If the regulations are expected to result in savings of £40 million —which is the figure that I heard at one time from the Government, although, today, the Minister said that it is not a matter of cost cutting —where will those savings come from,


if disabled people are not to be denied their independence? If the NHS offers provision of the same mobility, surely costs will be transferred from the Department of Social Security to the NHS. One Department or another will have to pick up the bill.
If the Government say that the mobility component is being misused, where is the evidence of it? I have seen no evidence for that claim, and disabled people's organisations have seen none.
The other flaw in the regulations is that the mobility component was a right, whereas NHS services are not. Perhaps trusts will spend the money that they receive on other things. Another problem that I can foresee concerns mental health patients. If they will no longer receive the component after four weeks, will not they be encouraged to leave hospital before the end of that period, to ensure that they continue to receive it? Will that not be dangerous for some of those patients?
The regulations have already caused problems, and I sincerely hope that they will be revoked tonight.

Mr.Robert G. Hughes: This debate on the disability living allowance is possible only because of its success. It would be wrong for the debate to end without paying an enormous tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott), who introduced it. He has, regrettably, been mentioned in the news this week, but his record shows that he has been the most successful Minister for disabled people ever.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea persuaded the Treasury and his Government colleagues to devote enormous amounts of extra taxpayers' money to fund the allowance. I was his parliamentary private secretary during that time, and I think that I can accurately express his views by saying that, if one is to be successful —not only on that occasion, but on others —in persuading the Treasury and Government colleagues to spend extra money, it is essential to ensure that the money is carefully targeted. This measure, which my hon. Friend the Minister is struggling to introduce, is a difficult one, but it is designed simply to ensure that we target that money. Any Government who really care about people with disabilities and who are really determined to make concrete and measured progress will always take such action.
One difference between the Government and Labour Members —although I have no doubt that they care about disabled people as much as I do —is on their claim that they can be so proud of their record in government. It took them four years to phase in a mobility allowance scheme, from which only 5,000 people gained benefit. I do not think that they can hold up their heads today and say that the measure is callous. It is necessary, and it has been thought through. Obviously it is a difficult measure, and no one would like to take it if it were not essential for good government.
The Labour party's suggestion that this debate is taking place in December only because the Government wish to smuggle it through the House is a disgraceful example of playing to the Gallery, and it cheapens its case. On a night when many hon. Members were prepared to debate the regulations, it was clear to us that Labour did not wish to

do so. I do not blame it for that decision, because it was based on many good reasons. However, one cannot make agreements through the usual channels, and then claim the moral high ground by saying that the Government did not want such a debate. The reality is that the Labour party did not want to have the debate. That is why it is happening now. The measure is not welcome but necessary, and my hon. Friend the Minister deserves the support of the House.

Mr. John Heppell: I will be brief, since every other hon. Member has tried to be.
The Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell), should hang his head in shame for supporting the regulations. Later in my speech, I will give him some examples of how people —probably from his constituency —are suffering as a result of changes to the regulations.
Effectively, the regulations represent a cost-cutting exercise, and everything that the Under-Secretary says in trying to defend them is just not logical. They are based on false premises and supported by false information. The idea that people were spending the mobility component of their disability allowance on sweets and cigarettes is, quite honestly, insulting to disabled people, and as the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) has said, to suggest that is disgraceful.
The idea that there is no need to enhance the mobility of people who go into hospital is an illusion. Section 73 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 allows benefits to be withdrawn where people cannot benefit from enhanced mobility, but the majority of people who are in hospital still need that mobility component. That was made quite clear at the beginning of the year.
As a member of the all-party disablement group, I received letters from the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation, Mencap, the National Association for Mental Health —MIND —the disablement information and advice line, the Royal National Institute for the Blind, the Disabled Drivers Association, the Association of Disabled Professionals, the Disability Alliance Educational and Research Association, the Spinal Injuries Association, Age Concern, Arthritis Care and just about every group that represents people with disabilities. They all said that the Government were working on a false premise. Not only did they object, but the Social Security Advisory Committee received almost 200 responses on the issue and told the Government that the proposals were based on false information and should not be implemented.
How is the change affecting people? The Government make it sound like some administrative change, but it actually means that 40,000 people have had their mobility component stopped or reduced. That is the Department's figure, not mine.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: indicated dissent.

Mr. Heppell: The Under-Secretary shakes his head. Let me tell him about somewhere much closer to home: Highbury hospital. As the Minister who has special responsibility for Nottingham, I am sure that he has visited it. There are 90 patients at that hospital, 76 per cent. of whom have had their benefits reduced due to the


regulations. The hospital is divided into houses. Denby house, where there are six patients, used to hire a Nissan Prairie six days a week but no longer does so, so patients do not get to go to swimming lessons or for music therapy any more. They cannot go shopping either. Once a week they used to be able to go shopping for toiletries. Now they suffer the indignity of somebody else buying their toiletries for them.
Hucknall house is in a slightly better position because it used the mobility component to buy two vehicles. The problem is that, although the house has managed to maintain one of them, it cannot be used because the mobility assistants there and at Denby house had to be sacked due to a lack of money to pay them. The Under-Secretary will have to go back to his constituency and tell his constituents why he is responsible for such events happening in Nottinghamshire.

Mr. Peter Luff: I detect a certain enthusiasm on the Opposition Benches to move quickly to a Division, so I shall be briefer than I had originally intended.
The regulations are about choice —not necessarily a particularly easy one, I acknowledge. It comes as no surprise to me to discover that new Labour is not prepared to make such difficult choices. I freely admit that I would rather that we did not have to make such a choice, but it is right to do so and I admire the straightforwardness of my hon. Friend the Minister's approach. The Government and the House often have to choose. I have supported many such difficult choices, and am delighted to do so again.
Hon. Members often have to choose in a way that upsets individual special groups. Sometimes there is a genuine disagreement about objectives, sometimes there is simply a disagreement about the means, and sometimes, as under the regulations order, we have to make difficult decisions about using public money —that means taxpayers' money —wisely. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) explained that very clearly.
We must acknowledge that the regulations reduce the incomes of some disabled people in hospital, but we should support them for four specific reasons. First, my hon. Friend the Minister made a powerful case for the logic of avoiding double provision. Every other benefit does that and I am not persuaded that we should make an exception for this particular aspect of the disability living allowance.
Secondly, the regulations will release resources for better use elsewhere in the system. We should always try to do that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West explained. Thirdly, the regulations are is sensitive to the particular needs of individual groups —the terminally ill in hospices, long-term cases and those with motability agreements for their wheelchairs or cars. Of course, they apply only to those whose stay in hospital exceeds four weeks.
Fourthly, and most important, the Government's general record on disability means that even if we have doubts about the regulations we should give them the benefit of the doubt. Spending on long-term sick and disabled people has quadrupled under the Government to £22 billion —virtually a quarter of the social security

budget. That is a fine record of which the Government have every right to be proud. They should be proud of the success of the disability living allowance, which although it had teething problems when it was first introduced, was introduced rapidly —unlike its predecessor the mobility allowance, which was phased in over four years —to 60 times the number of previous claimants. To govern is to choose, and I believe that this choice is right.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Despite his promise, the Minister failed to answer my question concerning the exclusion of the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland from consultation. I have been given an indication that he will answer the question.
In a letter that all the Scots Members of Parliament received, Dr. Dyer, the director of the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland, said about the regulations:
The Mental Welfare Commission has information from Lennox Castle hospital, for example, which has 166 residents previously in receipt of the high rates of mobility component. The total loss of income to these patients as a result of the changes will be £181,272 per annum. The Commission does not know if every penny of the money was previously spent exclusively for mobility purposes, but it does know that good use was made of DLA for mobility purposes in this hospital.
In another letter, Hugh Stewart, the depute director of the Scottish Society for the Mentally Handicapped, which does very fine work for people in Scotland who suffer from learning disabilities and other mental health problems, pointed out that the Scottish Office report —the Crosby report, which was published more than 10 years ago —encouraged hospitals to find ways of spending the benefits to improve the lives of their patients. In that sense, Scotland is different from England and Wales. The Department of Social Security typically failed to consult extensively throughout Scotland, and that is a matter for profound regret.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: If I do not answer all the points made by all hon. Members, I undertake to write to them after the debate to ensure that they have full answers.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), who has a very honourable mention on these occasions for the work that he has done for disabled people, should have recognised just how many strides the Government have made in helping the disabled people whom he has described over recent years. I make that point in all sincerity.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) made several detailed points. I should like to pick up on some of them. I apologise to him if I do not pick up on them all. To some extent, those in long-stay hospitals whom he mentioned get protection at the lower rate. As he knows, 92 per cent. of long-stay patients have been in hospital for more than one year and get protection.
My right hon. Friend asked about the extent of consultation, as did the hon. Members for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) and for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) —I apologise to him for not having answered his question in my opening remarks. My officials looked in detail at eight hospitals as part of


the fact-finding effort, including three in Scotland. In addition, the Department of Health and officials in the territorial Departments were consulted by Department of Social Security officials. The evidence from the Social Security Advisory Committee was consistent with the facts found by officials. Only the interpretation differed. I reiterate the point that I made in my opening remarks —this answers much of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling said —that when mobility is part of care, recuperation and rehabilitation, it is the responsibility of the national health service.
The private agreements referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) and the excellent wheelchair scheme referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling are being kept under careful review by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He has heard what has been said tonight. The House has our undertaking on that matter. The hon. Member for Rochdale made a point about balances. Balances were an issue at one time, but, as I made clear in my answer to her, we accept that they are no longer an issue. To some extent hospitals and patients have become adept at dealing with that problem.
In a characteristically well-informed speech on a subject on which he has immense expertise, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) paid tribute to our
right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott). The whole House will agree with his comments.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell), who is a parliamentary neighbour of mine, if not quite an hon. Friend, said that this was a cost-cutting measure. I explained in some detail that that was not the case. Spending on the disability living allowance has increased enormously over the past five years. The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that those on the Opposition Front Bench were unwilling to give a commitment to replace the spending that we are discussing. If the Labour party is unwilling to make that commitment, what we have heard tonight is just political posturing and hot air.
I have visited Highbury hospital and have looked specifically at some of the cases that the hon. Member for Nottingham, East mentioned. On that visit, I heard nothing to undermine our conclusions. That is why I commend the regulations to the House.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 225, Noes 233.

Division No. 28]
[6.52 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Bell, Stuart


Ainger, Nick
Benn, Tony


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Bennett, Andrew F


Allen, Graham
Benton, Joe


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Bermingham, Gerald


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Berry, Roger


Ashton, Joseph
Blunkett, David


Austin-Walker, John
Boateng, Paul


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Bradley, Keith


Bames, Harry
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Barron, Kevin
Burden, Richard


Battle, John
Byers, Stephen


Bayley, Hugh
Callaghan, Jim



Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hutton, John


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)


Campbell-Savours, D N
Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)


Canavan, Dennis
Jamieson, David


Cann, Jamie
Jenkins, Brian D (SE Staffs)


Carlile, Alex (Montgomery)
Jones, Barry (Alyn & D'side)


Clapham, Michael
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Jones, Dr L (B'ham Selly Oak)


Clelland, David
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd SW)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Cohen, Harry
Jowell, Ms Tessa


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Kaufman, Gerald


Corbyn, Jeremy
Keen, Alan


Corston, Ms Jean
Kennedy, Charles (Ross C & S)


Cousins, Jim
Kennedy, Mrs Jane (Broadgreen)


Cox, Tom
Khabra, Piara S


Cummings, John
kilfoyle, Peter


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try SE)
Lewis, Terry


Dafis, Cynog
Litherland, Robert


Dalyell, Tam
Livingstone, Ken


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretf'd)


Davies, Chris (Littleborough)
Llwyd, Elfyn


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Loyden, Eddie


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Lynne, Ms Liz


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
McAllion, John


Denham, John
McKelvey, William


Dixon, Don
Mackinlay, Andrew


Dobson, Frank
McLeish, Henry


Dowd, Jim
Maclennan, Robert


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
McNamara, Kevin


Eastham, Ken
MacShane, Denis


Etherington, Bill
McWilliam, John


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Madden, Max


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Faulds, Andrew
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Mandelson, Peter


Flynn, Paul
Marek, Dr John


Foster, Derek
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Fraser, John
Martin, Michael J (Springbum)


Fyfe, Mrs Maria
Martlew, Eric


Gapes, Mike
Meacher, Michael


Garrett, John
Meale, Alan


George, Bruce
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Gerrard, Neil
Milbum, Alan


Gilbert, Dr John
Miller, Andrew


Godman, Dr Norman A
Morgan, Rhodri


Godsiff, Roger
Morley, Elliot


Golding, Mrs Llin
Morris, Alfred (Wy'nshawe)


Gordon, Ms Mildred
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Grant Bernie (Tottenham)
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Mudie, George


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mullin, Chris


Grocott, Bruce
Murphy, Paul


Gunnell, John
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Hain, Peter
O'Hara, Edward


Hall, Mike
Olner, Bill


Hanson, David
Orme, Stanley


Hardy, Peter
Pickthall, Colin


Harman, Ms Harriet
Pike, Peter L


Harvey, Nick
Pope, Greg


Hattersley, Roy
Powell, Sir Raymond (Ogmore)


Heppell, John
Prentice, Mrs B (Lewisham E)


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hinchliffe, David
Prescott, John


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Primarolo, Ms Dawn


Hoey, Miss Kate
Purchase, Ken


Hoon, Geoffrey
Quin, Ms Joyce


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Randall, Stuart


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Raynsford, Nick


Hoyle, Doug
Randall, David


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Hughes, Robert (Ab'dn N)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Rogers, Allan






Rooker, Jeff
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Ross, William (E Lond'y)
Thumham, Peter


Rowlands, Ted
Timms, Stephen


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Tipping, Paddy


Salmond, Alex
Touhig, Don


Sedgemore, Brian
Turner, Dennis


Sheerman, Barry
Tyler, Paul


Sheldon, Robert
Vaz, Keith


Shore, Peter
Walker, Sir Harold


Short, Ms Clare
Wallace, James


Simpson, Alan
Walley, Ms Joan


Skinner, Dennis
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Wareing, Robert N


Smith, Chris (Islington S)
Wicks, Malcolm


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Snape, Peter
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Soley, Clive
Winnick, David


Spearing, Nigel
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Spellar, John
Worthington, Tony


Steel, Sir David
Wright, Dr Tony


Steinberg, Gerry
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Stevenson, George



Stott, Roger
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Ms Angela Eagle and


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Mr. Clive Betts.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Cope, Sir John


Alexander, Richard
Couchman, James


Alison, Michael (Selby)
Cran, James


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Amess, David
Curry, David


Arbuthnot, James
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Amold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Day, Stephen


Ashby, David
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Devlin, Tim


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Dicks, Terry


Batiste, Spencer
Dorrell, Stephen


Bellingham, Henry
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Beresford, Sir Paul
Dover, Den


Biffen, John
Dykes, Hugh


Body, Sir Richard
Emery, Sir Peter


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'ld)


Booth, Hartley
Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)


Boswell, Tim
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Evennett, David


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Faber, David


Bowis, John
Fabricant, Michael


Boyson, Sir Rhodes
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Brandreth, Gyles
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Brazier, Julian
Fishbum, Dudley


Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)
Forman, Nigel


Browning, Mrs Angela
Forth, Eric


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Bums, Simon
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Burt, Alistair
Freeman, Roger


Butler, Peter
French, Douglas


Butterfill, John
Fry, Sir Peter


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Gate, Roger


Carrington, Matthew
Gallie, Phil


Carttiss, Michael
Gardiner, Sir George


Cash, William
Gamier, Edward


Channon, Paul
Gill, Christopher


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Goodlad, Alastair


Clappison, James
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Grant, Sir Anthony (SW Cambs)


Coe, Sebastian
Greenway, Harry (Eating N)


Colvin, Michael
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Congdon, David
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Conway, Derek
Grylls, Sir Michael


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)
Gummer, John


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hague, William





Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Hampson, Dr Keith
Patten, John


Hanley, Jeremy
Pawsey, James


Hannam, Sir John
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hargreaves, Andrew
Porter, David


Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Portillo, Michael


Hawkins, Nick
Rathbone, Tim


Hawksley, Warren
Renton, Tim


Hayes, Jerry
Richards, Rod


Heald, Oliver
Riddick, Graham


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Rifkind, Malcolm


Hendry, Charles
Robathan, Andrew


Heseltine, Michael
Roberts, Sir Wyn


Hicks, Sir Robert
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Higgins, Sir Terence
Roe, Mrs Marion


Horam, John
Rowe, Andrew


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Rumbold, Dame Angela


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Sackville, Tom


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)
Sainsbury, Sir Timothy


Hunter, Andrew
Shaw, David (Dover)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Shephard, Mrs Gillian


Jessel, Toby
Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Shersby, Sir Michael


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Sims, Sir Roger


Jones, Robert B (W Herts)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Jopling, Michael
Soames, Nicholas


Key, Robert
Speed, Sir Keith


King, Tom
Spencer, Sir Derek


Kirkhope, Timothy
Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)


Knapman, Roger
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Spink, Dr Robert


Kynoch, George
Spring, Richard


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Sproat, lain


Lamont, Norman
Stanley, Sir John


Lang, Ian
Steen, Anthony


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Stephen, Michael


Legg, Barry
Stem, Michael


Leigh, Edward
Stewart, Allan


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Streeter, Gary


Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)
Sumberg, David


Lidington, David
Sweeney, Walter


Lilley, Peter
Sykes, John


Lloyd, Sir Peter (Fareham)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Lord, Michael
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Luff, Peter
Temple-Morris, Peter


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Thomason, Roy


MacGregor, John
Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)


MacKay, Andrew
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Maclean, David
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Trend, Michael


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Madel, Sir David
Viggers, Peter


Major, John
Waldegrave, William


Malone, Gerald
Walden, George


Mans, Keith
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Marlow, Tony
Waller, Gary



Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Waterson, Nigel


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Watts, John


Merchant, Piers
Whitney, Ray


Mills, lain
Whittingdale, John


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Moate, Sir Roger
Willetts, David


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Wilshire, David


Nelson, Anthony
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesf'ld)


Newton, Tony
Wolfson, Mark


Nicholls, Patrick
Yeo, Tim


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Young, Sir George


Norris, Steve



Oppenheim, Phillip
Tellers for the Noes:


Ottaway, Richard
Mr. Bowen Wells and


Page, Richard
Mr. Timothy Wood.

Question accordingly negatived.

Fees and Charges

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Tom Sackville): I beg to move,
That the draft Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act Fees (No. 1) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 12th November, he approved.
Under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, there is a system by which the users—those involved with animal procedures, who are mainly holders of personal licences—pay a licence fee that is altered from time to time by Parliament. It has always been agreed that the income generated is expected to meet the full costs of administering the Act, including the licensing system, the Home Office inspectorate, the Animal Procedures Committee and Home Office grants to sponsor research into alternatives. Those costs have reduced, but amount to some £2.3 million per annum.
The fees have been set according to the expected level of income. However, recently, because of a reduction in the number of personal licences—some 3,000 fewer are being issued than originally expected—there has been a deficit in the income. The order is designed to make up that deficit, and the Home Office will ask users to pay a one-off fee to make it up. The personal licence fee will go up from £110 to £135 and, under the order, a one-off fee of £89 will be levied. That will close the deficit and put the system back in financial balance. I therefore commend the order to the House.

Mr. Elliot Morley: I listened carefully to the Minister's presentation. It was more interesting for what was not in it than what was. The Minister told us that the order will make up the deficit in relation to the fees fixed by the Home Secretary under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. I understand why he is doing that. I also agree that such fees should cover the full costs of inspection and administration, but the Minister did not deal with several points.
First, how did the deficit arise? Secondly, is the current level of fees, even with the increase, realistic in relation to the full cost of providing the services?

Mr. Sackville: I explained that there has been a shortfall in the number of personal licences. There are some 3,000 fewer personal licences than was originally estimated and that has led to the deficit that we seek to make up through the order.

Mr. Morley: The Minister did say that, and I accept that there is a shortfall of 3,000, but surely any fee structure should contain an element of flexibility and be connected to the number of personal licences and, therefore, relate to the number of people who are carrying out experiments. I suspect that the shortfall may not mean that fewer experiments are being carried out; simply that fewer people are involved in them. Perhaps the Minister

will tell us whether people may be using the procedures to reduce charges by cutting down on the number of personal licences.

Mr. Tony Banks: rose—

Mr. Morley: Does my hon. Friend want to say something?

Mr. Banks: I had hoped that the Minister would give us more of an introduction, and I thought that he had indicated that he would give way to me before he finished.

Mr. Sackville: rose—

Mr. Banks: I am sorry, but I cannot give way while I am making an intervention. Instead, I shall ask my Front-Bench colleague a question. The Minister said that there was a 3,000 shortfall—whatever that may mean—but how many licences are there? That is the question that I wanted to ask the Minister. We know that there are now 3,000 fewer licences, but what is the total?

Mr. Morley: That is an important question, which we must come back to, because it is relevant to the argument. The Minister may like to answer it when he responds to the debate.
My hon. Friend's question leads me to what I was about to say. If there is a shortfall in income because of the reduction in the number of licences, is there not a way of restructuring and improving the way in which fees are charged under the Act? I mean a restructuring designed to encourage changes in the use of animals, especially the use of non-animal alternatives and more humane procedures.
One of the purposes of the fee is to fund research and development into non-animal alternatives, which we welcome. The Minister can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the Government put only about £250,000 into research into other methods—a modest sum to spend on the serious issue of switching away from the use of animals.
One way of boosting the money that goes into research into other methods would be to have a more realistic licence fee and to restructure the system. I accept what the Minister said about the 3,000 shortfall, but I went to the Library and looked back to the last time the licence fees were amended. If I am wrong, again I am open to correction by the Minister, but according to my research fees were last increased under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act (Fees) Order 1993.
The annual fee for scientific research establishments increased from £120 to £122—a £2 increase. If I am right, there has been no increase since 1993. Is it any wonder that there is a shortfall, when fees are put up by such a small margin? Personal licence fees, too, were last increased in 1993, from £108 to £110—also a £2 increase. The breeding and supplying establishments had their fees increased by the large sum of £8, to £553. I assume that there has been no increase since that date. If so, it is hardly surprising that a shortfall has arisen.
I do not think that those fees represent much of a burden on the pharmaceutical companies that pay them. I am sure that that level of increase was of little concern to them. The 1993 increase was unrealistic, and the fees


have not been increased since then. I do not think that that was responsible behaviour in terms of ensuring that the licence income kept up with the kind of services required.
The Minister says that there are 3,000 fewer licences, but I do not believe that the decrease accounts for the whole shortfall—the increases were tiny, at £2 a licence, and there has been no increase since 1993.
Such licence fee increases contrast badly with the Government's treatment of other charges and fees—council tax, for example. My local council tax payers would be delighted if their council tax was increased by only £2. My local authority is North Lincolnshire, a new unitary authority set up in 1995, and the people there have had to suffer an increase of 28 per cent. in their council tax. Yet pharmaceutical companies, many of which are very profitable and successful, pay such small charges.
Then there is what the charges are used for. The Minister said that they pay for the Animal Procedures Committee, for inspections, and for encouraging other methods. Those are legitimate and worthy objectives, but we must look at the link between income from licence fees, the work of the Animal Procedures Committee, and the level of inspections and their effectiveness under the 1986 Act.
In a reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), the Minister said that there were no plans to increase the funding of the Animal Procedures Committee from the current modest total of £253,000. He gave no information about any extra funding for the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods—the main centre that the Government have supported for the purpose of developing non-animal alternatives.
As the Minister is arguing in favour of an increase, it would not be unreasonable to ask him to tell us how much of it will go towards increasing funding for inspections, enforcement and the development of other options. He has not told us how much of the money will simply make up the shortfall that has arisen because of the paltry increases in 1993. It would be useful to know.
A classic example of the need to encourage a move away from unnecessary experiments is cosmetic testing. We could have a higher licence fee for institutions and companies involved in such work. Section 5(4) of the 1986 Act clearly states that animal suffering should not be outweighed by human benefit, so under the current legislation it is hard to justify cosmetic testing on animals.
There is great concern about the possibility that the agreed European Union deadline for ending cosmetic testing on animals may be extended. That is outside the scope of the debate, but I hope that the Minister will take note of the fact that many people would be appalled if that deadline were extended, because promises have been made to end the practice within the European Union.
Charges within the fees could be structured so as to encourage change and the use of other options. The LD50 test is outdated and obsolete, yet in 1994—the most recent year for which I could find figures—116,493 such tests took place. The Minister is probably aware that that goes against section 5(5) of the 1986 Act, which says that there must be "adequate consideration" of other methods.
There is an alternative to the LD50 test. The fixed-dose procedure is accepted by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and there is no reason

why it should not replace the LD50 test. There is also some argument about the use of the Draize test, and whether others are available.
Where there are arguments against tests—arguments about their age and about the cruelty involved—and where other tests could be used, could the Minister not consider differential payments by the institutions and companies that use the older tests? When they apply for licences, they should pay a considerably higher fee for using those tests, which would encourage a move away from the less acceptable tests towards the more modern options.
In 1993 the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection—the BUAV—exposed the fact that rabbits were being used by Wickham laboratories for pyrogenicity tests. Non-animal alternatives for those tests were not only available but had been recommended by both the United Kingdom and the European Union regulatory bodies, yet the tests were still taking place.
We are talking not simply about promoting other methods, but about a failure of enforcement under the 1986 Act. There has been a failure of procedure. Differential fees could help not only to discourage older, crueller tests, but to finance stronger regulation and more frequent and better inspection.
Why not also consider the fees as a means of encouraging a reduction in the number of animals used in experiments? A higher charge for using more animals would be an inducement to institutions and companies to reduce the number of animals that they use. That is not a new principle. It is accepted by the Government to promote environmental taxes. The increase in fuel duty by 5 per cent. above the rate of inflation is aimed at encouraging people to economise on fuel. Differential rates of tax on lead-free petrol and low-sulphur diesel are intended to encourage people to switch to those fuels for environmental reasons.
It is not unreasonable to suggest differential fees for licences to encourage a move away from the use of animals, to promote other methods and eventually to eliminate entirely the use of animals. The extra fees would also help to enforce the workings of the 1986 Act.
We must accept that there have been failings in the 1986 Act. I welcome the fact that the Animal Procedures Committee is conducting a full review of the workings of the Act. The Labour party has called for that for some time. Investigations by groups such as Advocates for Animals and the BUAV have demonstrated failures—for example, rabbits being burnt and operated on without adequate anaesthetics, and the abuse and tormenting of animals in certain institutions.
It would be helpful if the Minister told us whether he would consider differential charges, and whether he would discuss the matter with the Animal Procedures Committee as part of its review. Extra funding could bring about a reduction in the almost 3 million animals used in experiments, and speed up progress towards ending the practice.
The principle of differential charging is established and accepted. It is clear that the shortfall in income is due partly to inadequate charging, going back to 1993. The order presents an opportunity to rectify the situation.

Mr. Roger Gale: I shall not detain the House long. I know that many hon. Members have business outside the House. I owe an apology to Olivia


Burge of Briary Church primary school, who expected me to be at her carol service tonight. I hope that she and her classmates will understand that I have business here and will recognise the need for some of us to discuss these matters.
I must declare an interest in two pharmaceutical companies. That has never hindered me from speaking on this subject, and I do not propose to allow it to do so tonight. Hon. Members who know me know that that is my position.
I have great sympathy with the views expressed by the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), and I hope to explain to my hon. Friend the Minister why. I was privileged to serve on the Committee on the 1986 Animals (Scientific Procedures) Bill, as it then was, which was introduced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) with considerable courage.
It was widely considered at the time that the Bill was a significant step forward in animal welfare. Its achievements should be recognised, but it is now 10 years since the Act was passed. It is under review by the Animal Procedures Committee and I understand that Professor Brazier and her colleagues hope to report in full in early or mid-spring next year. We look forward to their recommendations, because science and public opinion have moved on since the Bill became an Act.
My view, which is shared by colleagues on both sides of the House, is that not enough progress has been made in those 10 years, especially in Europe. Many of us believe strongly that, if there is to be progress on the use of animals in medical and cosmetic experiments, that will be achieved properly only on a Europewide basis. In the United Kingdom we have made a little progress, with the outlawing of the import of wild-caught primates. Many of us think that that should be a Europewide ban and we object to the import into the European Union of primates of any kind.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Before the hon. Gentleman continues, I trust that this is a preliminary to a discussion of charges.

Mr. Gale: I am coming directly to the subject of fees and charges, Madam Deputy Speaker. As the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe said, much could be achieved if the fees were higher.

Mr. Tony Banks: Experimentation on primates should stop. We are told that they are no longer imported from the wild, although there are some infringements. Would it not be preferable to move away from the use of primates for experimental purposes?

Mr. Gale: I understand and respect the hon. Gentleman's position. He, I think, understands mine. I have never believed that one will solve a problem by moving it from A to B, which is why I am adamant that we must seek Europewide solutions; otherwise I fear that we shall end experiments in this country, only to find that they move, possibly to one of the southern European states, where animals will not be treated even as well as they are treated in laboratories in the UK.
In principle, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. As part of a step-by-step approach, the step of banning the use of wild-caught animals in the UK was a sound one. I would like it extended Europewide. I should like Europe to stop importing primates for medical or scientific experiments as soon as possible. I should like alternatives to be introduced, as I know would the hon. Gentleman.
The European Union has copped out of the cosmetics argument. The EC passed a directive stating that the use of animals in cosmetic testing would be phased out as soon as there were validated alternatives. We saw a flurry of welcome activity and investment, especially by the cosmetic companies, to explore possible alternatives. When it became clear that the implementation of the directive was unlikely to be possible within the time—this relates directly to the fees argument and the work of the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods—and when it became clear that validated alternatives would not be available, the Commission ducked the issue. Implementation has been postponed indefinitely.
The investment that was generated by the incentive of the end date has gone. The money from the cosmetic companies has been withdrawn. The small research companies that were investigating alternatives—I have in mind a particular laboratory in Scotland—find that their work is no longer being funded.
That bring us to the fees, which are modest. I recall—as I believe you do, Madam Deputy Speaker—that, during the passage of the Bill, the provisions for fees and charges were made specifically to back up the work of the inspectorate and the APC and to invest in research into alternative methods. Ten years on, insufficient money is being spent.
Those of us who have contacts in the pharmaceutical industry know that those companies believe that many experiments are carried out unnecessarily, but international agreements require them to be done. The APC should address those issues, and would be more able to do so if it was better funded. I do not see why that should become a burden on the British taxpayer. The companies that have a real and honourable interest in this would be willing to pay more in fees and charges if they believed that that would obviate the need for the animals in their animal houses which, frankly, most of them do not want any more than we do.
In the past couple of years, the inspectorate has been reduced. My hon. Friend the Minister will say that it has not been reduced, and that the level was raised to cope with the introduction of the Act. Once the Act had taken effect, it was no longer necessary to have the additional manpower. With respect, my hon. Friend has always overlooked the fact that the scientific procedures in which pharmaceutical companies and others developing new household goods are engaged are infinitely more complex than they were. They require greater understanding and a higher, not a lower, level of inspection.
One of the bases of the inspectorate was recently moved from the home counties back to central London. The effect has been—not may be, but has been—to give the inspectorate greater travelling time. It spends more time on the road and less time in the laboratories. I believe that it was intention of the House, and of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney and those of us who worked on the Act originally, that the inspectorate


should be able to do a thorough job. It should be made up not only of doctors, but of vets who are qualified to go into laboratories to examine animal husbandry and to challenge the issue of every licence, if necessary. Inspectors must ensure that animal life is not wasted in the way that many of us believe it currently is.
It is vital that the inspectorate is not weakened, but enhanced, and the companies themselves would welcome that. The House owes it to the spirit and the letter of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 to impose a level of charges that allows the inspectorate and the APC to operate properly. I do not believe that the procedures of the House will allow my hon. Friend the Minister to announce a sudden increase, but I urge him to go back to the Home Office and look carefully at the figures to see whether it is possible, through a further increase in these fees and charges, to fund the work that all hon. Members want to see.

Mr. Tony Banks: I have listened with great care to the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), who works closely with us, and leads us, in the all-party animal welfare group. We do not always agree—even on this matter—but he respects my views, and I his. I cannot extend that act of charity to the Minister tonight, and it makes nonsense of our procedures if he is not prepared to make a fist of the draft statutory instrument. There are a number of questions that I wanted to ask, and the Minister appears to be getting out from under as fast as he can. He does himself no great credit, and he has not enhanced the scrutiny powers of this place.

Mr. Sackville: The hon. Gentleman has an opportunity to ask his questions. I was proposing a narrow order about an increase in fees, which I thought I did admirably.

Mr. Banks: Self-commendation is no great thing in this place, which is full of people who think that they ought to have been Prime Minister. I suggest that the Minister adopt a more humble role in this place—otherwise his present role will be the only one he will ever have.
The Minister told us little about the draft statutory instrument. He said that there was a shortfall of 3,000 licences and that therefore there was a need to raise extra resources through the increased fees. But he did not tell us how many licences we gain fees from. That is important, as from that we can start to work out precisely the number of companies and groups involved in animal experimentation.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) that the proposed increases—from £110 to £135—are miserly and absurd, given the money made within the pharmaceutical and cosmetic industries, and research generally. The idea that £135, and a one-off fee of £89, is reasonable is absurd. The Minister told us nothing about total income, or how much the shortfall was in pounds, shillings and pence. I hoped that he would address those matters, and I hope now that, belatedly, he will apply his mind to these points when he replies to this short debate.
I am caught in a position of some equivocation, as I do not agree with animal experimentations—period. I take an absolutist position on this, which I realise puts me in something of a minority in the House. However, I believe

that we do not have the right to experiment on animals at all. Who are we to say that animals should suffer on our behalf? But if we are to do these experiments, the fees ought to be at such a level that people think carefully about whether they want to apply for a licence. In addition, increasing the fees could also produce some resources for the Home Office to enable it to police the licensing regime with a damn sight more efficiency and thoroughness than it does.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe said that the Act requires scientists to consider the use of alternatives, and the Home Office is there to study the difference between gain and pain in terms of experimentation. That can be done only if there are enough inspectors spending enough time thinking objectively and coolly about the matter. Funding is needed for more research projects in universities to look at these matters, but that cannot be done with the present miserly budget.
We have been told that the budget for looking at alternatives to animal experimentation is £253,000. Is that the real size of the budget, given the mega-millions that the industries that use these animals for experimentation are spending? Is that all we are spending? The Minister and the Home Office cannot be serious if this is the sort of money that they are talking about. If the fees are supposed to fund the inspectorate, it is not surprising that there are only 19 inspectors.
The inspectors' work load in 1994 included the assessment of 955 project licences, the monitoring of the work of 15,700 licensed applicants and the inspection of 328 research establishments in the United Kingdom. Is that the level of the problem with which they have to deal? Is that the scale of the work load? Are we seriously suggesting that we are taking inspection seriously, with just 19 inspectors? If we raise money to pay for the inspectors from the amounts we charge for licences, let us stick it on the licensees. If they want to experiment, let them pay for it. People like me do not want them to do it, but I am damned if I will let them do it when they know that they will not even be supervised within the terms of the 1986 Act.
All the good intentions that I hear will amount to nothing if we are unable adequately to police those pieces of legislation on which we insist in this place. Does the Home Office really care? Does the inspectorate really care? To what extent is the inspectorate hand in glove with the pharmaceutical industry in terms of experimentation? People may say that I am being unfair in making these allegations, but I feel that it is totally obscene for us to experiment on any animal. If we were to change to a more healthy life style, we might not have so many diseases. We might then not need to use animals in experiments to find ways of solving the problems that we have created ourselves.
I do not believe that we have the moral superiority to say that animals should suffer because of our ineptitude, stupidity and short-sightedness in living the unhealthy lives that we do. If we want to poison ourselves, let us do it, but we should not then kill animals to try to find an antidote. That may not be a popular view in the House, but I hold it strongly and I know that many people in this country hold it equally strongly.
If we must have experimentation and if we are to allow that obscenity to continue, let us at least police it properly. The Minister's inadequate introduction tonight has not


convinced me that he genuinely wants a reduction in the number of experiments. I understand that there were about 2.8 million experiments in 1994.
We have heard about some of the pointless experiments, such as the LD50 and Draize tests, that are still carried out in the cosmetics industry, and my hon. Friend—he is my friend in this context—the Member for North Thanet told us about the failure of the European Union to agree a common position. I disagree with him in that respect, because we are here to set an example, rather than merely to go at the pace of the slowest movers in the European Union. We should set an example and argue from a position of strength.
I cannot vote tonight against the increase in charges, but I want to register my total detestation of and opposition to all animal experiments. If the Home Office and the Government were serious about reducing the number of experiments, properly funding research into the alternative of non-animal experimentation and ensuring that there were enough inspectors, they would know that the measly, derisory and pathetic increases that the Minister proposed are totally unacceptable.

Mr. Paul Tyler: I have the greatest sympathy with all that has been said tonight, especially by the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), the chairman of the all-party animal welfare group. His views will be widely shared by hon. Members of all parties.
The welfare of animals is extremely important, and we have a relatively good reputation and record in this country, but the last thing that we must allow ourselves to indulge in is complacency. I entirely endorse what has been said about the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. As has been said, it is now 10 years old, and I understand that a radical review is being carried out. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I endorse the need for that review. We must be extremely careful to ensure that the order is adequate to its task, because it will take some time to complete the review and to introduce consequent legislation. There is no room for complacency.
I spent this morning at the sheep and beef event at the Bath and West showground where, incidentally, I was given a copy of an excellent tape called "British Beef is Better by Far", sung by a group called the "Moo Cow Blues". I promised to mention that in the House this evening, and now that I have done so I need not mention it again.
We have a good reputation, but I am concerned that in waiting for the rest of Europe to move we may slow ourselves down. The current discussion on the use of animals for testing cosmetics is timely, as is this debate, because a decision may be taken at any moment to postpone any action until the end of the century.
We still do rather more tests than other countries in Europe. The latest figures which I have show that I per cent. of all tests on animals here are for cosmetics and toiletries, whereas the figure for the whole of Europe is 0.3 per cent., so we have no room for complacency.

Mr. Gale: The hon. Gentleman must take on board the fact that some countries claim that they do not use animals

at all; sadly, they simply hide behind the cloak of having their dirty work done in other places, one of which is the United Kingdom.

Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because that underlines my endorsement of his point that we must not take unilateral action and assume that the rest of Europe will follow. The argument that the number of experiments is so low that it can be discounted can be turned on its head: if such tests are so unessential, surely we should do everything we can to eliminate them altogether. One way of doing that is to introduce a fee that makes them uneconomic.
We thought that we were moving in that direction when the 1986 legislation was introduced, when the original fees were introduced and when we thought that a European moratorium was about to take effect. Sadly, that does not seem to have happened, and I hope that the Minister will tell us the attitude of Her Majesty's Government, as it is not good enough to hide behind the attitudes of other member states. We need to know what our Ministers are doing on this extremely important issue.
The 1995 report of the Animal Procedures Committee expressed concern that
some licensees are still not aware of the terms imposed by their own licences.
That is an extraordinary situation and brings us specifically to the question of what the fees are used for. Hon. Members have referred to the number of inspectors. The figure for 1994 was only 19. Have more been appointed since then, or are there even fewer in 1996? They had to inspect 328 research establishments and assess 955 project licences. Have those numbers been reduced? Are the inspectors more effective? We need to know.
The Liberal Democrats, in our 1992 document "A Matter of Conscience", the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection and many others have referred to the inadequacy of the inspection procedures. In 1995, there were 19 detected infringements of licences, and only 11 were discovered by inspectors. That is an extraordinarily low rate. Either this is the best regulated part of our national life, or a great deal is going undiscovered. How many more infringements might be discovered if the inspectorate were more effective and could attend to the issues more comprehensively?
The amount of money that has been ring-fenced for research into alternatives to testing on animals has declined. The figure of £253,000 for 1995, which has been cited, has gone down in the current year to £242,000. The Animal Procedures Committee was banking on at least a modest increase to about £260,000. What will be the budget for 1997–98? We need to know, as that is what we are here for this evening. What is the point of discussing fees if we do not know how they will be used?
Will the Minister tell us in precise terms what the allocated budget will be, whether it will be ring-fenced and, especially, how much will be provided for the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods which has been set up in Italy? What will be the implications if implementation of the cosmetics directive is delayed? How will we be sure that in the next three years, up to the end of the century, there will still be an


increase in the pressure on the institutions and companies involved to move in the right direction? Why should there not be a higher fee for the licences that we are discussing?
It would be helpful if the Minister could say precisely what revenue he expects to raise from personal licences. It is by no means clear from the briefing that we had before the debate, and certainly not from his incredibly cavalier introduction, that there will be an increase of the order that many in the House, let alone the country, would expect. The fees raised from the holders of certificates to run designated establishments should be directly ploughed back into the investigation of alternatives.
Madam Deputy Speaker, this is a short debate which does not permit us to range as widely as we would like, but with your particular interest, you will agree that many people outside the House do not believe that we have got the priorities right. As the hon. Member for North Thanet, who chairs the all-party animal welfare group, has said several times, it is important for us to reflect the public's growing unease. We must not become so complacent about the progress since the passage of the 1986 Act that we do not accept that major additional improvements are needed now that it is 10 years old. That is the least that the public expect of us. It is not adequate for the Government to say that we are waiting on everyone else in Europe, because if we wait that long, it will be many years too late.

Mr. Iain Mills: I will be brief. There are alternatives in respect of costs and fees. I am sorry that FRAME, the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments, has not yet been mentioned. I am a founder member of FRAME, which has been trying for many years to find alternatives, such as invertebrates or computer programmes, to the use of animals.

Mr. Morley: I did not mention FRAME because of the narrowness of the order. Government funding for alternatives has been through the European centre. We recognise that FRAME does excellent work. One argument for increased or differential charges is that the Government could direct more resources to FRAME.

Mr. Mills: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's remarks. If differential charges could help FRAME in its dedicated campaign to find alternatives, which I have supported for many years, I should be pleased.
Sometimes, the House does not completely understand the use of animals in cosmetics, pharmaceuticals and other experiments. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) knows all about it. I just wish that more of our colleagues were more concerned about organisations such as FRAME.

Mr. Sackville: We are discussing the regulation of animal procedures. There is never much good news on this subject because it is highly unsatisfactory that we have to experiment on animals. The House knows that we cannot go too wide while discussing a fairly narrow order, but clearly there are reasons, such as medical research and public safety, why we use animals. No one likes it, but we are discussing the matter against the background of a

gradual fall in the number of experiments or procedures: from 3.6 million in 1987, to 2.84 million in 1994, the last validated figure.
The European definition of cosmetics is fairly wide and includes not only what people call cosmetics—such as lipstick—but soap, shampoo, toothpaste, protective sun cream, wart removers and other skin care products. The figure for such experiments has fallen from 14,500 in 1987 to 3,520 in 1994, the last validated figure. We expect to publish a figure below 2,000 for 1995. There is at least a welcome fall in the number of procedures, especially those designated as cosmetic, which cause the most offence. A small number of those involve beauty products, but many involve other products.
The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) asked several questions. He echoed the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) in asking about the exact deficit. It was expected for good reason that about 20,000 personal licences would be applied for and granted. In fact, the figure is 17,000. Those figures have led to an accumulated deficit over three years of nearly £1 million. It was to avoid a very large jump in one fell swoop, and I shall come to the reasons for that in a minute, that we decided to ask for an interim fee to make up the deficit and then go for a higher annual fee to be payable from April 1998.
The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe also asked why we should not have a different structure of fees to increase income. The image of large pharmaceutical companies and rich corporations paying all the fees is not entirely right. Many licences are held by people who work at universities. Some universities have several hundred personal licences. Jumps in fees not only involve the details of the balance sheet of profit and loss at Glaxo, but have academic ramifications.

Mr. Morley: I accept that some institutions are doing important work that affects people's health, but I emphasise the case for differential fees. There is no reason in principle why fees cannot take account of whether the institution or company involved is commercial. If the experimentation is for product development that is highly profitable, the fee could be adjusted accordingly.

Mr. Sackville: I take that point. Perhaps we should consider that. It was not in our original thinking when we made the arrangements. It has been suggested that those who do cosmetic testing should pay more, but the number of establishments involved with cosmetics is, I think, down to four. There will not be huge fee income from them, but I accept that there is an argument for saying that there are different sorts of users. Universities, which do not have money coming out of their ears, perhaps have a more deserving case than others.
ECVAN, the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods, has been mentioned. It is funded not by member states but by the Commission. Perhaps that is something that we should consider. My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) touched on the fact that we operate in a European context. We are to some extent—although, as has been said, we must not rest on this—limited by what happens


in Europe. If we drive such work abroad, it will be to countries, dare I say it, with less rigorous regulations, lower standards and perhaps less pressure from public opinion to keep up standards.
As the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) acknowledged, we set a good record in this country and a good example through the rigour of our regulations. There are problems with a European ban, and it is likely to be put off. It was Britain that proposed the ban on testing finished cosmetic products—we were probably a minority of one on that. Our country is more committed to animal welfare than others.

Mr. Gale: It would be appropriate to place it on record that we are also driving for changes through the intergovernmental conference. If we could pull that off, it would affect animal welfare right across Europe.

Mr. Sackville: That is an important point.
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has said of the European cosmetics directive:
Although a great deal of research into alternatives has been carried out, little progress towards actual replacement of animals has been achieved.
Although a great deal of work has been carried out, I regret that more money is not available for the research budget of the Animal Procedures Committee. I am afraid that it is likely to receive even less money next year, because all parts of the Home Office have been subject to funding reductions.

Mr. Mills: Can my hon. Friend be more specific about that?

Mr. Sackville: The figure available for next year will be £182,000, which is considerably less than the current budget. I regret that, but it must be set against the £20 million spent by commercial companies across Europe specifically on work on alternatives to animal experimentation. Although I should like the Animal Procedures Committee to have more to spend on sponsoring research projects, its work represents a small part of the whole, the vast proportion of which is sponsored by commercial sources.

Mr. Tyler: According to my quick calculation, the cut is equivalent to a reduction of between 15 per cent. and 20 per cent. in the budget. Is the Minister telling us that the rest of the Home Office budget is being slashed by that amount?

Mr. Sackville: I am afraid that significant parts of my Department's budget are being subjected to large funding reductions.

Mr. Tyler: Not 20 per cent., surely.

Mr. Sackville: Such cuts have been made. I have done my best to minimise the damage. It is not

something of which I can say I am proud, but that cut must be considered against the spending reductions imposed on many Departments.

Mr. Tony Banks: Perhaps I can help the Minister with a constructive proposal. Would he be prepared to farm out those functions to some of the animal welfare organisations? We could certainly raise far more than the derisory £182,000. Why not hand over those functions to some of the organisations represented by many of us who are present? That would get the Minister off the hook, and we shall be able to proceed with the work.

Mr. Sackville: Projects on the replacement of animal experiments can be sponsored by any source, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's offer would be gratefully accepted.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall and others questioned the adequacy of the inspectorate. It is made up of one chief inspector, three supervisors and 15 inspectors. They make 2,000 visits a year, the vast proportion of which are unannounced, to just over 300 establishment licence holders. The inspectorate consists of highly qualified and highly committed people. I cannot go along with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West that they might be in league with the pharmaceutical industry or anyone else. They are respected in their profession. They maintain high standards judged against European ones, and we hope to keep it that way.
I should like to echo the tribute that my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) paid to FRAME. It has done sterling work in forming public opinion and lobbying for more work on alternatives to be done. It has made many people much more conscious of the need to try to find alternatives to animal experimentation. I noted his remarks about funding for it.
We shall not satisfy everyone on this, including the hon. Member for Newham, North-West, who believes that it should be possible to introduce a total ban. I am afraid that that European ban is likely to be put off because of the lack of progress in finding alternatives, as the RSPCA reported. Our job is to try to lead by maintaining as high standards as we can. We must maintain our inspectorate and a system whereby we can regulate animal experimentation as best we can, although we regret the need for such work.
I believe that the increase in fees will provide us with the level of income necessary to maintain the inspectorate. I therefore commend the order to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act Fees (No. 1) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 12th November, be approved.

Hospital Services (North Durham)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Coe.]

Ms Hilary Armstrong: On 1 May, during a debate on the private finance initiative and the health service, I raised the problems encountered by north Durham hospitals, and the difficulties caused by the delay surrounding the private finance initiative. I am therefore grateful for the opportunity presented by the Adjournment to put before the House the increasing problems faced by people of the area as the crisis in hospital care mounts.
In May, I reported that five wards had just been closed and that services had been transferred from Shotley Bridge hospital to Dryburn hospital, without consultation, because of financial problems caused by an overspend last year coupled with the need to make a further £2 million raving in the current financial year.
The accident and emergency unit had already closed at Shotley Bridge and had been transferred to Dryburn. Over the summer an increasing number of problems were reported with accident and emergency services, to the extent that the trust acknowledged that people were having to wait for too long and that new procedures would have to be introduced.
In a report to the trust board in October it was stated:
The main problem is, however, that many patients are having to wait for a considerable period of time following an assessment, for their treatment…In relation to the emergency admissions via the A and E Department, whilst the number of admissions has increased, the number of patients having to wait to be admitted to a ward in excess of 2 hours has increased considerably.
I am pleased that the trust has recognised that serious problem, and is seeking to tackle it, although I understand that no additional resources have yet been identified for the additional staff it knows will be necessary.
Those words hide many individual experiences that have come to light in the past few months. In their own way, each has been distressing, but they have also contributed to a general crisis in confidence in the ability of the accident and emergency service at Dryburn hospital to cope with the range of patients from the area.
There are also additional problems for constituents, particularly in my area, who now have to travel a minimum of 14 miles to the accident and emergency department. One constituent came to see me and recounted how he had been taken by ambulance to hospital having been mugged outside his home late at night. He was eventually attended to at the A and E unit, but then he had to make his own way home. That cost him about £15. I have been told that that is now the norm—that patients will be taken to the accident and emergency unit, but will then have to find their own way home. None of us had worked that out in the early stages of the debate on the transfer.
There has also been an increase in the number of cancelled operations—again, that has been acknowledged by the trust. I wrote to the trust in July, following receipt of a letter from Mrs. Eccleston of Shotley Bridge. Her father was admitted to Dryburn hospital on 25 June. He was not allowed to eat and was prepared for theatre on Thursday 27 June, but his operation was cancelled and she was asked to take him home. He was readmitted the following Monday.
He was allowed no food and was prepared for the operation on Tuesday 2 July, but his operation was cancelled again. Mrs. Eccleston wrote:
I feel the services which the North Durham Trust provide are becoming somewhat of a joke, and patients are suffering, no matter what quality measuring the trust claim to provide. I feel that two admissions, five days in hospital—on fluids only and two doses of Pecolax—a very severe acting laxative—on an 80-year-old man—and then to have the operation cancelled twice is no longer tolerable.
The story does not stop there. I and my colleagues—I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice) here—were informed in September that the business case for the new district general hospital had been refused by the health authority because it was too expensive. Having initially been promised that the private finance initiative route would bring real savings, which could then be used to develop community services in the Shotley Bridge and Chester-le-Street areas, including the development of new community hospitals, we were appalled to hear that the planned new hospital was to cost more in year-on-year revenue costs than the two hospitals continuing would have cost. I believe that the health authority was right to say that that was unacceptable and that a scheme which was, at least, revenue neutral—that is, one that would not cost any more than the two existing hospitals—would have to be prepared, so it was back to the drawing board.
We were also told that the trust had put it to the health authority that to make necessary savings because of current budget deficits the trust wanted to proceed with the further rationalisation of services from Shotley Bridge to Dryburn. Again, the health authority rightly said that it would not sanction further rationalisation until it was satisfied that the physical capacity of Dryburn was adequate to take the new services and the additional patients. My constituents are horrified at the suggestion that the transfer of services should go ahead with no guarantee of a new hospital and without necessary improvements to Dryburn having been approved or carried out.
It is no exaggeration to say that there is now a crisis. Dryburn hospital is not ready to take more patients or to be responsible for more specialties. There are bed shortages now, as well as inadequate theatres. This week, we have been sent a letter by the consultant staff committee—I know that the Secretary of State was also sent a copy of the letter, so I am sure that the Minister has seen it. The letter outlines the consultants' growing concern. The consultants support the interim rationalisation of services from Shotley Bridge to Dryburn, but they are doing so because the quality of service is deteriorating and they feel that they cannot wait for a guarantee of the new district general hospital.
The consultants identify two key areas of capital investment: in coronary care and intensive care and in creating extra operating theatres. Dr. Robson, who is chair of the consultants committee, says that those two projects are an absolute requirement before the move can take place. He adds that the trust's financial position is such that it could not hope to fund such developments itself. He writes:
Consultants are now concerned … with simple, critical issues of patient care.
He goes on to say:
Colleagues feel that already they are unable, because of bed and theatre limitations, to offer the quality and quantity of service which is desirable.


Whichever way one looks at this matter, it is a crisis. The PFI case is having to be rejigged—the new case is with the health authority, but has not been agreed, so the Government have not yet seen it. The financial position is driving a hasty rationalisation without adequate facilities and the public feel that they are the last to be considered. Their confidence is being shaken again and again. We are facing the worst of all worlds: there is to be no new district general hospital, but the services are to go from Shotley Bridge. The whole saga is one of unfulfilled expectations and broken promises.
I am not here to condemn any individual or to lay blame, but the Government have to accept responsibility, both for the often chaotic way in which the changes in the health service have been approached and for the way in which the private finance initiative has been pursued. There is no time left for any procrastination.

Mr. Giles Radice: I congratulate my hon. Friend on obtaining this Adjournment debate—she is using the opportunity to debate this issue with her customary skill. I want to add my voice to her assertion that there is a crisis of confidence in hospital provision in north Durham. We want to hear from the Minister some reassurance that there will be the leadership necessary to get us out of this crisis. It is a crisis of confidence, not only for those who work in the hospitals, but for patients and for our constituents.

Ms Armstrong: I could not agree more. Indeed, I was about to say that someone has to get hold of this sorry affair and make sure that the people of north Durham get some reassurance. Those people are covered by my constituency, by my hon. Friend's constituency and by the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg), who is unfortunately unable to be here this evening, but who has been supportive of efforts to ensure that something is done.
Reassurance will not come merely with warm words. The Minister must demonstrate today, first, that the Government recognise the crisis facing the people of north Durham in terms of hospital care and, secondly, that he is prepared to take action. The future of the new district general hospital does not feel secure. I want a commitment from the Minister tonight that the Government still intend to ensure that the PFI for the new district general hospital will go ahead.
Reading the Red Book for last week's Budget, I was concerned to learn that it allows for only half the projects currently being pursued in the health service to proceed over the next three years. That suggests that the Government will allow some to fall by the wayside and that a proposal that is not picked up by the market may not become reality.
That will not do. A new district general hospital for north Durham must not be left to the vagaries of the market. Surely the Government must have projects that they are not prepared to allow to fail. We seek from the Minister an assurance that they are not prepared to see a new district general hospital on the Dryburn site fall by the wayside because the contract is not right or because they cannot reach a private finance initiative agreement at this stage.
What will the Government do to ensure that the necessary developments outlined in the letter from Dr. Robson take place? Before more services are moved from Shotley Bridge to Dryburn, we need to be sure that Dryburn is capable of receiving those services, delivering them effectively and caring properly for patients who will go there.
What will the Government do to ensure that there is an opportunity for the development of the community hospitals at Chester-le-Street and at Shotley Bridge? Dr. Levick, general practitioner in Consett, has done some excellent work for Shotley Bridge. Following wide consultation, he put together an excellent proposal for a community hospital which, if it is able to proceed, will become a model of its kind for the next 20 years. I seek reassurances that the Government understand the need for that facility and are determined to ensure that it will come into being.
We raise the issues in the House because of the real anxieties of our constituents. Recrimination does not take us forward, and we need to go forward. I cannot impress on the Minister too strongly the need for urgency. People in our area should have a health service that they can rely on and have confidence in. I am sorry to say that that confidence is ebbing away. It is our responsibility, in the positions that we hold as representatives of the people, to be the guardians of the health service.
I believe that the Government have let down the people of north Durham. Our constituents deserve better and I hope to hear from the Minister tonight that they will get better.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Horam): I acknowledge the persistence of the hon. Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong) on this issue, and her grave concern about the provision of hospital facilities in her part of Durham. I also acknowledge the concern of the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice), who intervened in her speech.
May I first say something about the accident and emergency service and relate some of the history of this matter? In March 1995, Ministers approved the closure of the accident and emergency department of Shotley Bridge hospital, where about seven of every 10 patients were treated for purely minor injuries, and approved its replacement by a nurse-led minor injuries unit.
That followed more general public consultation on the proposed reconfiguration of services between Shotley Bridge and Durham. The A and E department dealt with 18,000 attendances each year, well below the threshold recommended by the British Association for Accident and Emergency Medicine. That agreement followed more general public consultation covering proposed reconfiguration of services between the two hospitals.
All serious cases are now redirected to North Durham trust's main A and E facility at Dryburn hospital. However, in conjunction with the changes, North Durham trust did the following things. It appointed an additional consultant to the A and E department at Dryburn; upgraded the A and E department at Dryburn at a cost of £1.25 million, to provide increased facilities such as resuscitation bays; and installed a high-technology communications system—telematics—to link the two hospitals at Shotley Bridge and Dryburn.
The hon. Member for North-West Durham will concede that ambulance services have responded well. There are now paramedics on every emergency ambulance in the Consett area, and a high-dependency paramedic unit is stationed in Consett. It is equipped to allow paramedics to fax ahead vital information to Dryburn hospital.
The trust also issued leaflets explaining those changes, to help people understand them and to help the Shotley Bridge minor injuries unit to receive cases that it would be appropriate to treat there.

Ms Armstrong: I did not want to intervene, but it would be exaggerating to say that Members of Parliament feel that the ambulance service is doing everything well. There have been several hiccups. Although we want to demonstrate our confidence that the Durham ambulance service will in the long run get it right, we have not been altogether satisfied. We have had to deal with some very difficult issues in the past few months.

Mr. Horam: I take the point that some cases may have been less than satisfactory, but I am describing the new arrangements that have been made, and I believe that, in general, the performance of the ambulance service has been very good.
I recognise also that recently there has been concern in Durham because, as the hon. Lady said, some non-urgent patients have had to wait longer than usual for treatment at the A and E department. The North Durham acute trust has recognised that, as she said, and has acted speedily. In any case, it had always planned to review the A and E changes after six months.
The trust set up an internal review of its A and E department, and it will act quickly on many of the recommendations from the action plan produced by the review team. These proposals include: improvements in staffing of the A and E reception, so that nurses can use their time more productively; the appointment of a senior nurse to act as a nursing leader for the A and E department; and improved nurse staffing levels.
Contrary to what the hon. Member for North-West Durham said, the trust has allocated extra funding to cover the cost of those improvements until the end of March. It is also implementing a wide range of measures to improve communications with patients and prevent delays for patients awaiting admission.
The trust's chief executive recently emphasised that those improvements were being made. Last week he said:
Despite the fact that the A and E department it treating an increasing number of patients, the overall quality of medical care provided is extremely high. It is important to remember that all emergency cases have always been dealt with immediately and this will continue to happen".
So we should keep in mind the fact that patients do receive high-quality care in the A and E department of Dryburn hospital. The minor injuries unit at Shotley Bridge hospital is still capable of treating the vast majority of cases that previously went to the former A and E department there. Moreover, the new enhanced service represents a safer alternative for some seriously ill patients.
The hon. Member for North?West Durham mentioned the future role of Shotley Bridge hospital. I understand her worry about that. I understand the anxiety of local

residents. As she knows, the Shotley Bridge working party was set up in 1995 partly in response to local concerns about the proposed new role for Shotley Bridge hospital. She is familiar with the history of the development of Shotley Bridge hospital, and I believe that the way in which it is developing has been perceived as very progressive by local opinion.
I am pleased to note that the leader of Derwentside district council, Alex Watson, is a non-executive director of Community Health Care: North Durham NHS trust—the trust that is playing a leading role in the development of Shotley Bridge hospital. His concern and knowledge will be valuable in that context.
I shall now discuss the matters of concern.

Mr. Radice: I understand why the Minister would not want to mention it tonight, but will he ask his Department to inquire how the plans for a new community hospital in Chester-le-Street are developing? Perhaps the Minister would write and give me a progress report.

Mr. Horam: I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman that assurance and I will write to him. having investigated the state of play on the Chester-le-Street community hospital.
At the end of July, the hon. Members for North Durham and for North-West Durham visited me to discuss the important and innovative scheme for Dryburn. The hon. Lady then vigorously explained the need to update the facilities and I know that there is considerable local support for the scheme.
It is fair to say that the hon. Lady emphasised her enthusiasm for the proposals going ahead at Shotley Bridge, transforming it into a community-style hospital that would work in parallel with the Dryburn scheme. I can well understand her frustration and her wish that a new hospital be developed at Durham. I too would like—and indeed expect—progress to be made, but it is necessary for the scheme to pass through a rigorous process to obtain an affordable, high-quality hospital, which is good value for money and provides excellent facilities. The project is worth about £65 million. The hurdles that it must surmount are not particularly unusual and are generally overcome. The PFI route for North Durham also offers the opportunity to construct new facilities in one phase rather than via a phased development. One of the advantages of the PFI system is that everything can be done at once. As the hon. Lady and the hon. Gentleman will be aware from their experiences in north Durham, hospitals constructed via the public route often involve one, two, or three phases which can disadvantage the local community.
The hon. Lady voiced her strong concerns about the future of the PFI scheme in Durham. I am assured that the trust and the County Durham health authority are working jointly on measures to bridge the "affordability gap". The next step will be for the trust to finalise the full business case for the project and ensure that it has health authority agreement. I give both hon. Members this assurance: I am personally involved with the case and I know that all the parties concerned locally—the trust, the health authority and the regional arm of the national health service executive—are working extremely hard on the project.
As Minister responsible for PFI schemes, I assure the hon. Lady that the project remains a high priority. It is one of the leading PFI schemes and it enjoys my full


support and attention. Obviously I cannot guarantee its success, but it will not fail for want of trying. We are convinced of the need for a new hospital in Durham and we believe that we are on course to achieving that. There is no reason why it should not be accomplished within the timeframe that I mentioned. The project does not lack the necessary support and leadership, and I shall be dedicated to it while I remain the Minister responsible.
The hon. Lady said that the transfer from Shotley Bridge to Dryburn should not take place without adequate improvements to the hospital at Dryburn. In a sense, the PFI scheme and those improvements are linked. I also recognise the point made by Dr. Robson in his letter that the improvements are necessary on clinical grounds. They will go forward on clinical grounds, as the financial grounds are not strong. Clinical needs and patient care are the important factors driving the improvements at Dryburn. I recognise the hon. Lady's assertion that coronary care, intensive care and extra operating theatres are the three key issues around which the improvements revolve. I hope that I have reassured the hon. Lady that the scheme does not lack priority: it will go ahead if the parties who are currently working extremely hard continue to do so.
Finally, I turn to the overall position of the health authority. The hon. Members will be aware from the letters that they have received in the past week or so that the health authority received an integrated allocation for next year of £295.7 million—which is a £6.4 million real cash increase and a 2.3 per cent. increase. They will know that Durham is an under-target health authority: its budget is below what it would receive normally. Therefore, it will continue to receive above-average increases in revenue, year on year, until it reaches the target level. At present it is about 1.6 per cent. below the target—which is not a lot—so it will benefit in future years.
We intend to try to raise all health authorities in the country to the correct revenue levels steadily, year on year. We cannot achieve our objective in one year, but we shall reach our target over time. The health authority is in a promising position as it will receive the revenue necessary to deal with some of the immediate problems facing the trust. For all those reasons—first, the commitment of the PFI scheme; and, secondly, the situation facing the health authority—the hon. Lady has reason to be optimistic.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to Nine o'clock.